Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community-generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal 'with whom we are'. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas.In its simplest terms, deliberative democracy refers to a conception of democratic government that secures a central place for reasoned discussion in political life. This conception has itself been the topic of much recent discussion, most of it favourable, with even its critics tending to acknowledge the intuitive attractiveness of democratic deliberation. The new use of the label 'deliberative' by veteran theorists John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas to describe their -quite dissimilarnormative conceptions of democracy is further evidence of its current popularity (Rawls, 1997b;Habermas, 1994;Habermas, 1996). Deliberative democracy, it seems, is in vogue. But does it deserve its current favourable reception? Why should we prefer a deliberative model to, for example, a non-deliberative participatory model or a purely procedural one? This essay sets out to consider the merits of the main arguments commonly advanced in favour of the deliberative conception of democracy. It groups these under five broad headings.The arguments focus respectively on: (1) the educative power of the process of public deliberation (2) the community-generating power of the process of public deliberation (3) the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation (4) the epistemic quality of the outcomes of public deliberation, and (5) the congruence of the ideal of politics articulated by deliberative democracy with 'whom we are'. Although most of these arguments express valid intuitions, the first four are insufficient -or deficient -as they stand. Even where they offer good reasons for preferring the deliberative ideal of democracy, they require help from the fifth argument if they are to be fully convincing.My discussion of deliberative democracy aims to show why the first four arguments are incomplete or unsatisfactory, requiring help from the fifth if they are to form part of a convincing defence of deliberative democracy. To this extent its concern is methodological. However, methodology is not purely a matter of abstract academic interest. In debates about deliberative democracy methodological issues merit attention for at least two reasons. First, since deliberative democracy is a POLITICAL STUDIES: 2000 VOL 48, 947-969
org By Arto Laitinen in Critical Theory and Values. Maeve Cooke's new book is about the nature and prospects of critical social theory in the broad sense of "any Mary Gennuso 2007. A Good Life in a World Made Good. Newsletter of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy 35 106:32-35. RePresenting the Good Society The MIT Press 19 Feb 2015. Overview: where can i download RePresenting the Good Society by Maeve Cooke free ebook pdf kindle online textbook epub electronic book RePresenting the Good Society English-Buy Re.-Flipkart Representing the good society / Maeve Cooke. by Cooke, Maeve. Call no.: HM585.C666Series: Studies in contemporary German social thought. Publication: ?The Philosophical Society of Southern Africa « Representing the. Representing the interests of the academic philosophical community in Southern Africa. The Philosophy Society of Southern Africa PSSA welcomes the 0%. as the role of Section chairs is crucial to the good development of the Congress. RePresenting Good Society-Academia.edu 1 Apr 2007. Maeve Cooke, RePresenting the Good Society, MIT Press, 2006, 264pp., $35.00 hbk, ISBN 026203347x. Arto Laitinen, Representing the good society-PhilPapers 27 Jun 2014. Lawyers on representing clients accused of nightmarish crimes I'm really good at convincing myself I've compartmentalised all this stuff. My father once said: To keep our society free and democratic, someone has to do RePresenting the Good Society-Google Books Result In Representing the Good Neighbor: Music, Difference, and the Pan American Dream, Carol A. Hess investigates the reception of Latin American art music in the RePresenting the Good Society-Blz ?21 Sep 2012. Read a free sample or buy RePresenting the Good Society by Maeve Cooke. You can read this book with iBooks on your iPhone, iPad, iPod Representing the good society. by Cooke, Maeve. Additional authors: ebrary, Inc. Series: Studies in contemporary German social thought Published by: MIT Representing the Good Neighbor: Music, Difference, and the Pan.-Google Books Result Contemporary critical social theories face the question of how to justify the ideas of the good society that guide their critical analyses. Traditionally, these more or Representing the Good Neighbor-Carol A. Hess-Oxford University Read/Download RePresenting the Good Society ebook-ovadliotoss 9 Apr 2013. It follows Habermas in holding that translations re-articulate religious contents in a way See Cooke, RePresenting the Good Society, pp. Defending the indefensible? Lawyers on representing clients. ZVAB.com: Representing the good society. von Cooke, Maeve.-Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. Orig. cloth binding. Dustjacket. x,264 pp. Studies in REPRESENTING IGNORANCE*-New York University Strathmore University Library catalog › Details for: Representing the. You searched UBD Library-Title: Representing the good society Maeve Cooke. Bib Hit Count, Scan Term. 1, Representing the good society electronic RePresenting the Good Society-Google Books democratic theory for such a society is the general politic...
Like many contemporary political theorists, Jürgen Habermas asserts a close connection between social integration and legitimation. In common with theorists such as Rawls, for example, Habermas emphasizes that the motivation of citizens to live together peacefully in a particular political order cannot be separated from their view of the justification of the political authority governing that order. 1 For both theorists, a political order is deficient if citizens accept a particular form of government merely as a modus vivendi. 2 Although in such cases citizens with different beliefs agree to a set of political arrangements that allow them to live together peacefully, an agreement of this kind does not generate the social solidarity required by a political order that is stable "for the right reasons." 3 Thus, against proponents of democracy as a modus vivendi, 4 Habermas and Rawls see social solidarity as intimately bound up with the rational acceptability of laws and political decisions. In contrast to Rawls, however, Habermas attributes an epistemic dimension to political legitimation. 5 Unlike Rawls, who rejects the view that truth is at stake in democratic public deliberation and decision-making, 6 he insists that democratic deliberation improves the epistemic quality of democratic decisions and that such decisions raise a claim to truth. This is why he describes the democratic constitutional state -the form of government he favors -as an "epistemically demanding form of government that is, to an extent, sensitive to truth" and claims that a "posttruth democracy" would no longer be a democracy. 7 In other words, when Habermas asserts a close link between social integration and the rational acceptability of laws and political decisions, he means rational acceptability in a truth-analogous sense. On his account, legal-political validity shares with truth an ideal moment of unconditionality: like truth, this form of validity is context-transcending in the strong sense that it refers to a kind of validity that always goes beyond the standards of validity actually prevailing in a particular social-cultural context. 8 A crucial ingredient of Habermas's account of context-transcending validity, however, is its rejection of an "otherworldly" reference point. In contrast to approaches that locate the source of context-transcending validity externally, in some metaphysical "outside" or "otherness," Habermas insists that it is "innerworldly." As he often puts it, communicative rationality expresses a concept of "transcendence from within" -a transcendence that is immanent to human practices. 9 This is one of the principal reasons why he describes his theory as "postmetaphysical." A further defining feature of postmetaphysical theory is that it is ethically abstemious: it refrains from judging the validity of particular conceptions of the good. 10 In the
The article considers Jürgen Habermas's views on the relationship between postmetaphysical philosophy and religion. It outlines Habermas's shift from his earlier, apparently dismissive attitude towards religion to his presently more receptive stance. This more receptive stance is evident in his recent emphasis on critical engagement with the semantic contents of religion and may be characterized by two interrelated theses: (a) the view that religious contributions should be included in political deliberations in the informally organized public spheres of contemporary democracies, though translated into a secular language for the purposes of legislation and formal decision making and (b) the view that postmetaphysical philosophy should seek to salvage the semantic contents of religious traditions in order to supply the evocative images, exemplary figures, and inspirational narratives it needs for its social and political projects. With regard to (a), it argues that the translation requirement impairs the political autonomy of religious believers and other metaphysically inclined citizens, suggesting that this difficulty could be alleviated by making a distinction between epistemologically authoritarian and non-authoritarian religious beliefs. With regard to (b), it argues that the salvaging operation is not as straightforward as Habermas seems to suppose and that social and political philosophy may not be able to tap the semantic power of religious traditions without relying on metaphysical assumptions; it concludes that, here, too, a distinction between authoritarian and non-authoritarian approaches to knowledge and validity may be useful.In a number of recent essays Jürgen Habermas examines the relationship between religion and philosophy, in particular, between religion and those modes of social and
The most fundamental challenge facing humans today is the imminent destruction of the life-generating and life-sustaining ecosystems that constitute the planet Earth. There is considerable evidence that the strongest contemporary ecological threat is anthropogenic climate change resulting from the increasing warming of the atmosphere, caused by cumulative CO2 and other emissions as a result of collective human activity over the past few 100 years. This process of climate change is reinforced by further ecological problems such as pollution of land, air and sea, depletion of resources, land degradation and the loss of biodiversity. The name gaining currency for this emerging epoch of instability in the Earth’s eco-systems is the Anthropocene. Anthropogenic climate change calls for a categorical shift in thinking about the place of humanity in these systems and requires fundamental rethinking of ethics and politics. What would an appropriate ethical frame for politics in the Anthropocene look like? In response to this question, I sketch a proposal for an ethically non-anthropocentric ethics. I draw on early Frankfurt School Critical Theorists, and on Habermas, but move beyond these theorists in key respects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.