Don't Put All Your Speech-Acts in One Basket: Situating Animal Activism in the Deliberative System

Abstract

In this article I offer deliberative systems as a normative and evaluative approach through which to appraise typically 'non-deliberative' animal activism. Although such actions can contribute to inclusive deliberation through the political representation of animals, I caution against an over-reliance on such tactics and interrogate the claim that non-deliberative tactics are essential ingredients for prompting the reflection and reconsideration that animal rights philosophy demands. Instead, non-deliberative activism may serve not only to undermine further deliberation but to actually jeopardise animal protection goals.

Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy

“…In a healthy deliberative system, good deliberation is not necessarily evenly distributed; the low quality of deliberation in certain sites is compensated for by highquality deliberation in other sites . More importantly, low deliberative quality may accompany or even be an integral part of protests or other political organizations that add information and draw attention to issues in the deliberative system (Parry 2017). These suggestions open new ways of understanding and studying deliberation.…”

“…Taking the ideal conditions for deliberation as their benchmark, they examine the deliberative quality of discussion in both small groups and the broader public sphere. They have, for example, investigated the large-scale processes of deliberation on various issues such as climate governance , LGBT equality , and animal rights (Parry 2017). Meanwhile, some scholars take an inductive approach, and use empirical work to sharpen deliberative theory's normative claims Curato 2019;Asenbaum, Chapter 5 in this volume) or use empirical research to bring deliberative democracy's principles to life (e.g.…”

Mixed Methods

“…Taking the ideal conditions for deliberation as their benchmark, they examine the deliberative quality of discussion in both small groups and the broader public sphere. They have, for example, investigated the large-scale processes of deliberation on various issues such as climate governance , LGBT equality , and animal rights (Parry 2017). Meanwhile, some scholars take an inductive approach, and use empirical work to sharpen deliberative theory's normative claims Curato 2019;Asenbaum, Chapter 5 in this volume) or use empirical research to bring deliberative democracy's principles to life (e.g.…”

Why and how to compare deliberative systems

“…Emergent interpretive studies on this issue focus on particular non‐deliberative acts and richly explore their consequences in deliberative practice across settings. When undertaken with an appreciation of fluidity, such studies can help unpack in rich detail the mechanisms by which non‐deliberative acts deliver favourable (or unfavourable) deliberative consequences throughout the broader system (see, e.g., Parry ). But the insights are limited to the particular intervention at hand (i.e., a particular act or set of practices in a particular deliberative system), such that the impact on the broader question – getting greater specificity on how and why particular non‐deliberative acts have deliberative consequences – remains weak.…”

“…They could, for instance, usefully augment their analysis with consideration of research on anti‐government protests that have seemingly had lesser impact on broader deliberative practice (as reflected in Smith ). They could further draw out comparison with research on protests, albeit in a very different context of sectoral activism, that outlines important detrimental effects for the broader deliberative system (as reflected in Parry ). Sustained analysis comparing these cases might help trace patterns in the mechanisms that produce positive deliberative effects in some cases but neglible or negative effects in others, in the process unpacking the enabling (and discouraging) contextual features that channel such effects.…”