D ELIBERATIVE democracy as a theoretical enterprise has gone through a series of phases or 'turns'. 1 The most recent manifestation of this dynamic is the idea of the 'deliberative system', of which a variety of formulations have been proposed. An important initial reflective synthesis of work on deliberative systems is the recent essay, 'A systemic approach to deliberative democracy'. 2 Co-authored by an impressive range of deliberative theorists (), the essay has become a manifesto for the systemic turn (henceforth we refer to the essay as the 'Manifesto'). In this article, we offer a critical reconstruction of the systemic turn and, more particularly, the theoretical trajectory proposed by the Manifesto. Specifically, we distinguish the characteristics of currently dominant approaches to deliberative systems, arguing that there are good reasons to be cautious concerning the merits of this systemic turn and sceptical in respect of its credentials as an expression of deliberative democracy as a political ideal. Having offered a sustained critique of the current trajectory of the deliberative systems literature, we sketch two constructive alternatives. I. CONTEXTUALISING THE SYSTEMIC TURNThe initial wave of work on deliberative democracy focused on the emergence and refinement of the ideal of deliberation and the articulation of deliberative *We wish to express our gratitude to Jane Mansbridge who has been generous in offering extensive reflections on several versions of this article and pushing us to clarify our critique. We would also like to thank democracy. 3 Conceptual debate over the specification of the nature of the ideal of deliberation continues apace, incorporating, for example, feminist theorists' expansion of what can reasonably be understood as reason-giving. 4 In the second phase of scholarship-its 'empirical turn'-scholars have studied applications of deliberative democracy, including, for example, forms of mini-publics, constitutional courts and legislatures both in open and closed session. 5 Although these studies help clarify the institutional conditions under which good quality deliberation might be enabled, a reasonable criticism is that too often the analysis prioritises 'discrete instances of deliberation, investigated with little if any attention to their relationship to the system as a whole'. 6 Many have seen the systemic turn as a natural development in the life-history of deliberative democracy, a third phase that extends the conception of deliberative democracy to take into account the deliberative characteristics of the political system as a whole. As the Manifesto argues:No single forum, however ideally constituted could possess deliberative capacity sufficient to legitimate most of the decisions and policies that democracies adopt. To understand the larger goal of deliberation, we suggest that it is necessary to go beyond the study of individual institutions and processes to examine their interaction in the system as a whole. We recognize that most democracies are complex enti...

No abstract

The aim of this essay 1 is to elucidate the logical structure of genealogy as a practice of critical reflection and, in doing so, to illustrate, dispel and account for the confusion concerning this practice which has characterised its reception, perhaps especially among philosophers working within the tradition of the Frankfurt School. The essay advances five claims which can be stated in summary as follows:1. Setting aside the cases of contingent error and of ignorance, we can note that there are (at least) two logically distinct forms of self-imposed, non-physical constraint on our capacity for self-government: being held captive by an ideology (i.e., false consciousness) and being held captive by a picture or perspective (i.e., what one might call 'restricted consciousness'). 2. Critical Theory as ideologiekritik 2 is directed to freeing us from captivity to an ideology; genealogy is directed to freeing us from captivity to a picture or perspective. 3 3. Philosophers working within the tradition of Critical Theory have typically misinterpreting genealogy as a (empirically insightful but normatively confused) form of ideologiekritik. 4. This category mistake is the product of an illicit generalisation of ideological captivity as the only form of self-imposed, non-physical constraint on our capacity for self-government. 5. Once this 'craving for generality' is dispelled, we are able to grasp both genealogy and Critical Theory as addressing distinct aspects of enlightenment and involving distinct kinds of dialogue. 4The argument of this essay is presented in five parts, each corresponding to one of the theses summarised above. ILet us consider the class of types of self-imposed, non-physical constraint on our capacity for self-government. The argument advanced here is that we can distinguish at least two members of this class, namely, being held captive by an ideology and being held captive by a picture or perspective, which I'll refer to as European Journal of Philosophy 10:2 ISSN 0966-8373 pp. 216-230

No abstract

No abstract

The proposal to create a chamber selected by sortition would extend this democratic procedure into the legislative branch of government. However, there are good reasons to believe that, as currently conceived by John Gastil and Erik Olin Wright, the proposal will fail to realize sufficiently two fundamental democratic goods, namely, political equality and deliberative reasoning. It is argued through analysis of its historic and contemporary application that sortition must be combined with other institutional devices, in particular, rotation of membership and limited mandate, in order to be democratically effective and to realize political equality and deliberative reasoning. An alternative proposal for a responsive sortition legislature is presented as more realistic and utopian: one that increases substantially the number of members, makes more extensive use of internal sortition and rotation, and recognizes the importance of establishing limited mandates.

Combining philosophical acuity, psychological insight and a remarkably powerful prose style, On the Genealogy of Morality is a dazzling and brilliantly incisive attack on European morality. David Owen situates the Genealogy in the context of the development of Nietzsche's philosophy and offers readers a sophisticated and nuanced analysis of this great text. He provides a lucid account of Nietzsche’s reasons for adopting a “genealogical” investigation of our moral values as well as a detailed analysis of the Genealogy itself. Highlighting the key features of Nietzsche’s critique of morality and his call for a re-evaluation of values, Owen shows how the arguments and rhetoric of the Genealogy combine to undermine our modern understanding of moral agency. Rich in insight, Owen's book is a distinctive and significant contribution to our understanding of this landmark work of western philosophy.

No abstract