Deliberative Democracy and Emotional Intelligence: An Internal Mechanism to Regulate the Emotions

Emotional Speech Acts and the Educational Perlocutions of Speech

“…For instances of this on‐going dialogue, see Boler, ; Brackett and Rivers ; Cigman , ; Dunlap, ; Ecclestone and Hayes, ; Goldman, ; Griffin, ; Griffiths, ; Hargreaves, ; Kristjansson, ; Liston and Garrison, ; Morgan, ; Pekrun and Linnenbrink‐Garcia, ; Roberts, ; Scheffler, ; Schutz and Pekrun, ; Smeyers et al ., ; Smith, ; Suissa, ; Zembylas and Fendler, .…”

Non-domination, contestation and freedom: The contribution of Philip Pettit to learning and democracy in organisations

“…Habermasian workplace democracy (in consulting widely and seeking a consensus) might not, on the face of it, seem to be welfarecentric. However, as many criticisms of Habermas's work suggest, the effect of power relations and emotions will often mean that the more persuasive and influential members within a deliberative forum (or workplace) will dominate proceedings (Pellizoni, 2001;Griffin, 2012a).…”

“…Habermasian workplace democracy (in consulting widely and seeking a consensus) might not, on the face of it, seem to be welfare-centric. However, as many criticisms of Habermas’ work suggest, the effect of power relations and emotions will often mean that the more persuasive and influential members within a deliberative forum (or workplace) will dominate proceedings (Griffin, 2012a; Pellizoni, 2001). Added to this is the possibility of group polarisation through deliberation (Sunstein, 1999) or the role that individual values play in exchange (McCarthy, 1998), and it suggests that there are numerous obstacles for organisational scholars when trying to incorporate Habermas and his theories into their account of workplace democracy.…”

Menschliche Potentiale und Hindernisse für demokratische Deliberation

“…So müsse der Einbezug emotionaler Gehalte Deliberation keineswegs behindern, sondern würde gar das ‚epistemische Niveau' von Deliberation heben (Benhabib 1995: 189;Young 2000: 57 ff. ; Barnes 2008: 475-477;Krause 2008: 117-122, 201;Griffin 2011a). Klammere die Deliberation, so Benhabib (1995: 177-178), mit einem überhöhten Universalitätsanspruch den konkreten Anderen in seiner partikularen affektiv-emotionalen Konstitution aus, so entäußere sie sich dadurch gerade der Grundlagen, die für einen deliberativen Universalisierungstest von Normen notwendig seien.…”

“…Eine Reihe von AutorInnen erkennen Affekt und Emotionen als eher unproblematischen Teil von Deliberation an, denn diese baue unvermeidlich auf emotionale Kapazitäten wie Empathie und Mitgefühl (Mansbridge 1996;Griffin 2011a). Gemäß der Lesart von Dahlberg (2005: 116-117) zeige sich, dass mit dem Einebnen der starren Dichotomie von Ratio und Emotionalität Emotionen sogar mit Habermas' argumentativem Ansatz zu vereinbaren sind.…”