Democracy and Liberty

Cohen, Joshua

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175005.010

Cited by 151 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first condition suggests that democratic deliberation helps to educate autonomous citizens by inculcating independence and internal efficacy (Mill, 1956;Held, 1987;Cohen, 1990Cohen, , 1998. The more that citizens encounter different points of view, face to face, the more they are likely to examine their own views and thereby develop the autonomy essential for effective citizenship.…”

Section: The Experience and Consequences Of Everyday Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more that citizens encounter different points of view, face to face, the more they are likely to examine their own views and thereby develop the autonomy essential for effective citizenship. The second suggests that democratic deliberation builds political legitimacy for democratic institutions by drawing citizens toward consensus on fundamental values and rules of the game (Ackerman, 1980(Ackerman, , 1989Habermas, 1987;Fishkin, 1991;Benhabib, 1992;Cohen, 1997Cohen, , 1998.…”

Section: The Experience and Consequences Of Everyday Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Everyday political talk' is an increasingly important part of what Jane Mansbridge characterizes as 'deliberative systems' in industrialized democracies. However, how is it practiced by ordinary people? And how does their practice affect democracy and citizenship? Our paper addresses four questions: (1) How should everyday political talk be conceptualized as a component of the 'deliberative system'? (2) What can and cannot be learned by studying normative topics like deliberation empirically? (3) How can we investigate such everyday talk using the methodologies of survey research, focus groups and content analysis? (4) What have we learned in our own research programs from each methodological approach? Acta Politica (2005) 40, 269-283. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113Keywords: deliberation; deliberative system; deliberative democracy; citizens; citizenship Introduction 'Everyday political talk' is central to democratic citizenship. It is an increasingly important part of what Jane Mansbridge (1999) characterizes as 'deliberative systems' in industrialized democracies. However, how is it practiced by ordinary people? And how does their practice affect democracy and citizenship? For unlike political elites, or even political activists, average citizens have few opportunities to deliberate rigorously in formal institutional settings. Most of their political discussions are therefore quite unstructured. And yet these exchanges both constrain and contribute to the evolution of political ideas and policy proposals. They are also said to provide a civic education that teaches desirable democratic attitudes and practices.Our paper addresses four questions: (1) How should everyday political talk be conceptualized as a component of the 'deliberative system'? (2) What can and cannot be learned by studying normative topics like deliberation empirically? (3) How can we investigate such everyday talk using the methodologies of survey research, focus groups and content analysis? (4) Acta Politica, 2005, 40, (269-283) What have we learned in our own research programs from each methodological approach?Everyday Political Talk in the Deliberative SystemThe deliberative turn in democratic theory illuminated public deliberations that seek common ground and that might strengthen the culture and practice of citizenship (Dryzek, 2000). This enlarged our focus to encompass not just the aggregation of preferences but also the processes by which preferences and the broader values that shape them are formed (Shapiro, 2003). Many liberal theorists and empirical researchers have recently joined the enterprise. However, they have frequently focused on deliberations in institutional settings, where exchanges are likely to be more genuinely deliberative, rather than on the everyday political talk of average citizens (Schauer, 1999). Indeed, many have pushed ordinary citizens out of the picture because their talk is often unstructured and not directed at producing publicly binding decisions (Gutmann and Thompson, 1996). Yet it is difficult to...

show abstract

Section: The Experience and Consequences Of Everyday Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Experience and Consequences Of Everyday Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…with the good of the State in mind. The same claim was forwarded by early deliberative democracy theorists (Rawls, 1993(Rawls, /1996Habermas, 1996;Cohen, 1998). More recent conceptions of deliberation, however, allow for participants to forward private interests as long as this is done in mutual respect and with the aim of finding a collectively satisfying result (Gutman & Thompson, 1996Bohman, 1998;Hendriks, 2006).…”

Section: Collective-and Non-regulation-based Public Interestmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Varying Interpretations of Public Interest: Making Sense of Finnish Urban Planners’ Conceptions

Puustinen¹,

Mäntysalo²,

Jarenko³

2017

CUS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past decades, the concept of public interest has been severely criticized. It nevertheless remains to be a key normative reference point against which public planning may be evaluated and justified. The article claims that there are multiple conceptions of public interest that coexist in everyday planning practice. These conceptions are grounded in the age-old debate on the duties of the State. In the article, four different approaches to public interest were recognized on the basis of two dimensions of the concept. These dimensions are individual/collective and regulation/non-regulation. The theoretical assumptions were tested with interview data of Finnish planning professionals. The coexistence of multiple conceptions of public interest was revealed. This ambiguity makes public interest dubious as a rhetorical tool. Without the explication of the discursive context, the concept is largely devoid of meaning. Thus, when truly seeking justification to planning decisions, with reference to "public interest", the explication of the context and the discursive framework applied is necessary.

show abstract

“…According to Cohen (1998), a democratic model of participation should give people bound by a collective decision an equal chance to influence that decision [39]. While any actual system is bound to fall short of this principle, we can ask whether the CrowdLaw model succeeds or could potentially succeed in creating a system that brings us closer to this ideal.…”

Section: What Is the Crowdlaw Model Of Participation?mentioning

confidence: 99%