Contentious Pluralism: The Public Sphere and Democracy

Abstract

What do peasants in eighteenth-century England, African Americans in Reconstruction-era Virginia, mothers in Nicaragua and Argentina, and contemporary transnational activists have to do with one another? They all illustrate instances where marginalized groups challenge a lack of democracy or the limitations of existing democracy. Democracy is both a process and a product of struggles against power. Both the social capital literature and literature that focuses on democracy as a product of institutions can undervalue the actions of regular people who imagine a democratic world beyond anything that actually exists. The four cases examined in this article demonstrate that marginalized groups use a variety of performative and subversive methods to uproot the public sphere from its exclusionary history as they imagine, on their own terms, democratic possibilities that did not previously exist. In so doing, they plant the seeds of a more egalitarian public politics in new times and places. This process is "contentious pluralism," and we ask political scientists in all subfields to look to popular movements and changing political structures as they explore the promise of democracy and to rethink the gap between democracy as an ideal and the ways in which people actually experience it.

Protesting Putinism

“…the picture of protest in democracies is also simplified. It is true that protest is common and mostly peaceful, but it is also the case that access to the polity is highly uneven and excluded groups and new entrants often have to resort to quite disruptive measures to get attention (Guidry and sawyer 2003).…”

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

“…Hence, social motives may be much more important than we have assumed. Likewise, the content analyses of 'letters to the editor' suggest that such letters are more than dialogic exchanges; they can also be a form of contentious pluralism (see Guidry and Sawyer, 2003) through which subordinate groups pursue ideological and institutional change, and dominant groups respond by defending their privileges. In effect, such talk is one way that subordinate groups seek to challenge rhetorically the hegemony of the understandings favored by dominant groups in society.…”

Youth Agency, Sport, and the Public Sphere in Kenya

“…Instead, through its developmental work, it provides young people with a vision of how their own agency might change the service delivery systems in their locale. Further, although their study (Guidry and Sawyer 2003) does not resolve the issues of poverty or the government's performance, this article argues that by engaging in community development work, the youths perceive themselves as actors or participants who are engaged in activities that challenge the status quo. The youths also use subtle communication strategies including drama, music, and different forms of play to create awareness as well as to provide the public with various forms of information that address policy-related issues, including children's rights, access to health care and education, and other social justice issues, thereby planting the seed for public engagement in their communities.…”

“…Voluntas (2012) 23:26-42 31 Moreover, while the Habermasian public sphere focuses mainly on the use of language or the spoken word, it has been argued that this emphasis omits other communicative strategies that are crucial and effective in the public sphere. Other distinct ways of subversion could include the use of procedures, rhetoric, and demonstrative strategies (Guidry and Sawyer 2003). In brief, the procedural approach includes using legal procedures to hold the state and dominant actors accountable to their own principles.…”