Critical Theories of Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Citizenship

Stokes, Geoffrey

doi:10.1057/9780312376154_4

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Critical deliberative democratic theory and the associated theories of neo-Roman republicanism and discursive democracy argue for the development of a political culture which enables individual citizens to engage in wide-ranging deliberation about public life with others, in a way in which their views and opinions can be modified through such public reasoning and consequently influence political decision-making. 58 Such theory contrasts with the delimited nature of liberal reformist stands of deliberation in the sense that critical approaches seek to widen the inclusivity of public participation, broaden the array of issues subject to democratic concern and ensure that public deliberation will be a significant part of decision-making processes. 59 Critical approaches also emphasise the importance and possibility that citizens can radically transform political practice because critical deliberation 'allows for the transformation of their views, their institutions, and their social contexts'.…”

Section: Deliberative Accountability and The G20mentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospects of deliberative global governance in the G20: legitimacy, accountability, and public contestation

Slaughter¹

2012

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contends that the ‘G’ system struggles to play a legitimate and effective role in global governance and argues that the G20 could play a important role if the forum was more publically accountable. This article argues that because of increasing forms of public contestation, the broadening agenda of the G8 and G20 and the uncertain status of global cooperation, that the legitimacy of the ‘G’ system is being questioned. As such, it is appropriate to consider deliberative avenues whereby public views could be considered by the G20 in a systematic way to foster forms of accountability. This consideration is animated by deliberative democracy theory and republican theory which advance a normative agenda which seeks to transform governance structures by enhancing the role of deliberation and public reasoning in political life. The article outlines the development of the ‘G’ system's legitimacy, considers possible modes of accountability and public involvement with respect to the G20 and examines the implications of more formalised public deliberation with respect to the G20.

show abstract

Section: Deliberative Accountability and The G20mentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospects of deliberative global governance in the G20: legitimacy, accountability, and public contestation

Slaughter¹

2012

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deliberative democracy is inspired by Habermas (Dryzek, 2000; Jodal, 2003). Deliberative democracy calls into question the idea of instrumental rationality that decision making is about aggregation and reconciliation of preestablished individual self‐interest (Dryzek, 2000; Stokes, 2005). Instead of conceiving politics as a battle between preestablished interests, deliberative theoreticians assume that democratic participation changes individuals, making them more public spirited and attentive to the interests of others (Dryzek, 2000).…”

Section: Instrumental Versus Communicative Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been considered unrealistic (Cohen, 1996; Elster, 1998). As Stokes (2005) put it, deliberative citizens need to be able to exercise self‐restraint in refraining from the immediate instrumental purpose of their self‐interests. This attribute would need to be accompanied by the capacity for critique and self‐reflection, an ability to listen to others and be open to revisions of earlier positions (ibid).…”

Section: Instrumental Versus Communicative Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This attribute would need to be accompanied by the capacity for critique and self‐reflection, an ability to listen to others and be open to revisions of earlier positions (ibid). It is doubtful whether this very high standard of communicative action required is available among large numbers of citizens (McAfee, 2000; Stokes, 2005).…”

Section: Instrumental Versus Communicative Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expressive Rationality: A Different Approach for Understanding Participation in Municipal Deliberative Practices

Svensson

2008

Communication, Culture &Amp; Critique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do people engage in municipal deliberative practices? The aim of this article is to explore inhabitants' motivations for participating in deliberations organized by Civic Committees in the south Swedish municipality of Helsingborg. I have done this through an ethnographic study, observing deliberative practices and interviewing inhabitants, politicians, and municipal officials in Helsingborg. This study is also theoretically inspired. I argue that the Civic Committees are inspired by deliberative theories of democracy in order to address changing patterns of political participation in late modernity. It is especially the deliberative focus on rationality as communicative, rather than instrumental, that is attractive for a municipality trying to reorient civic participation back to its institutions. However, by focusing on the issue of motivation, I argue that neither the instrumental nor the communicative account of rationality is satisfactory in fully understanding inhabitants' motivations for participating in municipal deliberative practices in late modernity. With a focus on identity, I therefore suggest a more expressive account of rationality.

show abstract

Transnational democratization and republican citizenship: Towards critical republicanism

Slaughter

2014

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transnational civil society activism has become increasingly prominent in world politics. However, there are significant questions about how these emerging processes of transnational activism can and should interface with existing forms of global and national governance. This essay contends that republicanism can explain how transnational activism can productively relate to global and national governance. Republicanism is able to develop an approach which draws upon both constitutional and discursive aspects of democracy by developing a greater focus on the roles that citizens can play with respect to both formal state institutions and the deliberative practices with respect to transnational activism. This essay develops a position termed critical republicanism which demonstrates that these transnational forms of activism can be best understood as early stages of an incipient process of transnational democratization and that the virtues of citizens need to be rethought so that citizens are concerned about the changing nature of domination at home and abroad, and be willing to engage with transnational sources of information and activism.

show abstract

Critical Theories of Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Citizenship

Cited by 8 publications

References 28 publications

The prospects of deliberative global governance in the G20: legitimacy, accountability, and public contestation

The prospects of deliberative global governance in the G20: legitimacy, accountability, and public contestation

Expressive Rationality: A Different Approach for Understanding Participation in Municipal Deliberative Practices

Transnational democratization and republican citizenship: Towards critical republicanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About