The Politics of Difference
reading notes
Lecture 2
1) “Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy”, Young I. 1996.
The piece discusses the concept of deliberative democracy as an alternative to
interest-based theories of democracy. The author supports a discussion-based ideal of
democracy but identifies two problems with its typical articulation. Firstly, many
theorists narrow the concept of democratic discussion to critical argument, which
may lead to cultural bias and the devaluation of certain individuals or groups.
Secondly, theorists assume that discussions aiming for understanding must either start
with shared understandings or have a common good as their goal. The author
suggests revisions to this approach, introducing the concept of communicative
democracy. This involves viewing cultural differences as resources for
understanding, not obstacles, and expanding the definition of democratic
communication to include greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling alongside
argumentation.
The Model of Deliberative Democracy
Theorists of deliberative democracy contrast their view with the interest-
based model of democracy.
Interest-based models focus on expressing preferences, demands, and
voting for policies that serve individual interests.
Deliberative critics argue against the interest-based model, citing its
perceived irrationality and privatized political process.
Deliberative democracy sees politics as a rational process where citizens
come together to discuss collective problems and goals.
Democratic processes in deliberative democracy center around the common
good rather than competing for private interests.
Citizens in deliberative democracy transform preferences based on public-
minded ends through open dialogue and reasoning.
Deliberative democracy involves testing and challenging assertions, sorting
out good reasons from bad, and accepting conclusions based on the "force
of the better argument."
Young I. agrees with critics of the interest-based model, advocating for a
conception of democracy focused on rational decision-making for public
, ends. Deliberative democracy is seen as appearing in decision-making
structures of voluntary associations and occasionally in state policy
formation.
The author criticizes the usual articulation of deliberative democracy for
restricting democratic discussion to argument, leading to cultural biases and
exclusions. The assumption that unity is either a starting point or goal in
deliberative democracy may have exclusionary consequences.
Exclusionary Implications of the Deliberative Model
Deliberative democracy promotes reason over power in politics, emphasizing
policies adopted based on reasoned arguments rather than the influence of
powerful interests.
Advocates believe deliberative democracy is more inclusive and egalitarian
than interest-based democracy.
The ideal conditions for deliberative democracy involve open-minded
participants engaging in reasoned arguments, assenting to conclusions based on
the "force of the better argument."
Deliberative theorists often assume that eliminating political and economic
power is sufficient for equal participation, overlooking cultural differences and
social positions. In fact, the deliberative model of communication is influenced
by specific institutional contexts in the modern West, such as scientific debate,
parliaments, and courts, which have historically been elitist and exclusive.
The norms of deliberation, derived from these institutions, can silence or
devalue certain speech styles and perpetuate social inequalities. Deliberative
norms often privilege assertive and confrontational speech, disadvantaging
more tentative, exploratory, or conciliatory styles, which may be associated
with females.
Better-educated white middle-class individuals may feel entitled to speak with
authority, while other groups may feel intimidated and silenced by formal rules
and requirements.
The norms of deliberation also favor speech that is formal, general, and
dispassionate, discounting more embodied and emotionally expressive styles of
communication. These norms correlate with social privilege, with white
middle-class men typically adhering to a more controlled and dispassionate
speech culture, while women and racial minorities tend towards more
expressive and embodied communication.
, The discussion-based theory of democracy needs to recognize and incorporate
a broader range of speech styles and forms of communication beyond
traditional deliberative norms.
The author suggests a broader theory called communicative democracy, which
includes various forms of communicative interaction aimed at reaching
understanding, not limited to argumentation.
Deliberative Model Assumes Unity
Communicative democracy emphasizes that people's ideas about political
questions can change through interaction with others' ideas and experiences.
In public discussions, individuals must appeal to others by presenting just or
good proposals, transforming subjective desires into objective claims.
People's initial preferences often change to make them publicly speakable,
and their ideas about collective problems can be transformed by listening to
others.
Deliberative theorists discuss the process of moving from subjective
preferences to more objective opinions as a discovery or construction of unity
among participants.
Two approaches to unity are observed: one considers unity as a prior condition
of deliberation, assuming shared understandings, while the other sees unity as a
goal, where participants transcend their subjective perspectives for the
common good.
Problems with the first approach include the lack of shared understandings in
pluralist societies and the potential avoidance of self-transcendence.
The second approach, viewing unity as a goal, may harbour exclusionary
mechanisms, especially in situations with differentiated groups and unequal
privileges. Appeals to a "common good" in such situations may perpetuate
privilege, as the perspectives of the privileged are likely to dominate the
definition of the common good, marginalizing the less privileged.
Considering Difference a Resource
For democratic discussion to occur, some level of unity is required, but the
unity within a polity is seen as weaker than deliberative theorists assume.
Communicative democracy requires a commitment to equal respect, agreed-
upon procedural rules, and significant interdependence among members of a
, polity. These conditions are thinner than shared understandings or the pursuit
of common goods in deliberative democracy.
Differences in social position and identity perspectives are viewed as resources
for public reason rather than divisions transcended by public reason.
Assuming unity as a starting point or goal in deliberative democracy may not
account well for the transformative potential of communicative processes.
Communicative democracy involves encountering and expressing differences
in meaning, social position, or need, leading to the transformation of
preferences.
Communication among perspectives that transcend one another preserves
plurality, enabling participants to understand societal meanings and policy
consequences from various standpoints.
Understanding one another in communicative democracy does not imply
mutual identification; successful expression of experience and perspective is
sufficient.
Preservation and listening across differences cause transformations in
preferences by revealing the partiality of one's own perspective, forcing the
transformation of expressions of self-interest into appeals to justice, and adding
to the social knowledge of all participants.
Expressing, questioning, and challenging differently situated knowledge
contributes to a greater social objectivity, enhancing participants' wisdom for
arriving at just solutions to collective problems.
The Breadth of Communicative Democracy
Finally, the text emphasizes the limitations of a strict deliberative model of
democracy and advocates for a broader and more inclusive communicative
democracy. It draws on Plato's Gorgias to highlight the interconnectedness of truth
and rhetoric, challenging the distinction between rational discourse and persuasion.
The author introduces three elements crucial for communicative democracy: greeting,
rhetoric, and storytelling.
1. Greeting: Acknowledging the embodied and particular nature of interlocutors,
greeting involves expressions of acknowledgment, politeness, and deference. It
establishes trust and respect, essential for effective communication, especially in
diverse and conflict-prone settings.
reading notes
Lecture 2
1) “Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy”, Young I. 1996.
The piece discusses the concept of deliberative democracy as an alternative to
interest-based theories of democracy. The author supports a discussion-based ideal of
democracy but identifies two problems with its typical articulation. Firstly, many
theorists narrow the concept of democratic discussion to critical argument, which
may lead to cultural bias and the devaluation of certain individuals or groups.
Secondly, theorists assume that discussions aiming for understanding must either start
with shared understandings or have a common good as their goal. The author
suggests revisions to this approach, introducing the concept of communicative
democracy. This involves viewing cultural differences as resources for
understanding, not obstacles, and expanding the definition of democratic
communication to include greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling alongside
argumentation.
The Model of Deliberative Democracy
Theorists of deliberative democracy contrast their view with the interest-
based model of democracy.
Interest-based models focus on expressing preferences, demands, and
voting for policies that serve individual interests.
Deliberative critics argue against the interest-based model, citing its
perceived irrationality and privatized political process.
Deliberative democracy sees politics as a rational process where citizens
come together to discuss collective problems and goals.
Democratic processes in deliberative democracy center around the common
good rather than competing for private interests.
Citizens in deliberative democracy transform preferences based on public-
minded ends through open dialogue and reasoning.
Deliberative democracy involves testing and challenging assertions, sorting
out good reasons from bad, and accepting conclusions based on the "force
of the better argument."
Young I. agrees with critics of the interest-based model, advocating for a
conception of democracy focused on rational decision-making for public
, ends. Deliberative democracy is seen as appearing in decision-making
structures of voluntary associations and occasionally in state policy
formation.
The author criticizes the usual articulation of deliberative democracy for
restricting democratic discussion to argument, leading to cultural biases and
exclusions. The assumption that unity is either a starting point or goal in
deliberative democracy may have exclusionary consequences.
Exclusionary Implications of the Deliberative Model
Deliberative democracy promotes reason over power in politics, emphasizing
policies adopted based on reasoned arguments rather than the influence of
powerful interests.
Advocates believe deliberative democracy is more inclusive and egalitarian
than interest-based democracy.
The ideal conditions for deliberative democracy involve open-minded
participants engaging in reasoned arguments, assenting to conclusions based on
the "force of the better argument."
Deliberative theorists often assume that eliminating political and economic
power is sufficient for equal participation, overlooking cultural differences and
social positions. In fact, the deliberative model of communication is influenced
by specific institutional contexts in the modern West, such as scientific debate,
parliaments, and courts, which have historically been elitist and exclusive.
The norms of deliberation, derived from these institutions, can silence or
devalue certain speech styles and perpetuate social inequalities. Deliberative
norms often privilege assertive and confrontational speech, disadvantaging
more tentative, exploratory, or conciliatory styles, which may be associated
with females.
Better-educated white middle-class individuals may feel entitled to speak with
authority, while other groups may feel intimidated and silenced by formal rules
and requirements.
The norms of deliberation also favor speech that is formal, general, and
dispassionate, discounting more embodied and emotionally expressive styles of
communication. These norms correlate with social privilege, with white
middle-class men typically adhering to a more controlled and dispassionate
speech culture, while women and racial minorities tend towards more
expressive and embodied communication.
, The discussion-based theory of democracy needs to recognize and incorporate
a broader range of speech styles and forms of communication beyond
traditional deliberative norms.
The author suggests a broader theory called communicative democracy, which
includes various forms of communicative interaction aimed at reaching
understanding, not limited to argumentation.
Deliberative Model Assumes Unity
Communicative democracy emphasizes that people's ideas about political
questions can change through interaction with others' ideas and experiences.
In public discussions, individuals must appeal to others by presenting just or
good proposals, transforming subjective desires into objective claims.
People's initial preferences often change to make them publicly speakable,
and their ideas about collective problems can be transformed by listening to
others.
Deliberative theorists discuss the process of moving from subjective
preferences to more objective opinions as a discovery or construction of unity
among participants.
Two approaches to unity are observed: one considers unity as a prior condition
of deliberation, assuming shared understandings, while the other sees unity as a
goal, where participants transcend their subjective perspectives for the
common good.
Problems with the first approach include the lack of shared understandings in
pluralist societies and the potential avoidance of self-transcendence.
The second approach, viewing unity as a goal, may harbour exclusionary
mechanisms, especially in situations with differentiated groups and unequal
privileges. Appeals to a "common good" in such situations may perpetuate
privilege, as the perspectives of the privileged are likely to dominate the
definition of the common good, marginalizing the less privileged.
Considering Difference a Resource
For democratic discussion to occur, some level of unity is required, but the
unity within a polity is seen as weaker than deliberative theorists assume.
Communicative democracy requires a commitment to equal respect, agreed-
upon procedural rules, and significant interdependence among members of a
, polity. These conditions are thinner than shared understandings or the pursuit
of common goods in deliberative democracy.
Differences in social position and identity perspectives are viewed as resources
for public reason rather than divisions transcended by public reason.
Assuming unity as a starting point or goal in deliberative democracy may not
account well for the transformative potential of communicative processes.
Communicative democracy involves encountering and expressing differences
in meaning, social position, or need, leading to the transformation of
preferences.
Communication among perspectives that transcend one another preserves
plurality, enabling participants to understand societal meanings and policy
consequences from various standpoints.
Understanding one another in communicative democracy does not imply
mutual identification; successful expression of experience and perspective is
sufficient.
Preservation and listening across differences cause transformations in
preferences by revealing the partiality of one's own perspective, forcing the
transformation of expressions of self-interest into appeals to justice, and adding
to the social knowledge of all participants.
Expressing, questioning, and challenging differently situated knowledge
contributes to a greater social objectivity, enhancing participants' wisdom for
arriving at just solutions to collective problems.
The Breadth of Communicative Democracy
Finally, the text emphasizes the limitations of a strict deliberative model of
democracy and advocates for a broader and more inclusive communicative
democracy. It draws on Plato's Gorgias to highlight the interconnectedness of truth
and rhetoric, challenging the distinction between rational discourse and persuasion.
The author introduces three elements crucial for communicative democracy: greeting,
rhetoric, and storytelling.
1. Greeting: Acknowledging the embodied and particular nature of interlocutors,
greeting involves expressions of acknowledgment, politeness, and deference. It
establishes trust and respect, essential for effective communication, especially in
diverse and conflict-prone settings.
