To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Deliberativ.
Journal articles on the topic 'Deliberativ'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Deliberativ.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Gerber, Marlène, André Bächtiger, Susumu Shikano, Simon Reber, and Samuel Rohr. "Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)." British Journal of Political Science 48, no. 4 (September 15, 2016): 1093–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123416000144.
Full textAbstract:
This article investigates the deliberative abilities of ordinary citizens in the context of ‘EuroPolis’, a transnational deliberative poll. Drawing upon a philosophically grounded instrument, an updated version of the Discourse Quality Index (DQI), it explores how capable European citizens are of meeting deliberative ideals; whether socio-economic, cultural and psychological biases affect the ability to deliberate; and whether opinion change results from the exchange of arguments. On the positive side, EuroPolis shows that the ideal deliberator scoring high on all deliberative standards does actually exist, and that participants change their opinions more often when rational justification is used in the discussions. On the negative side, deliberative abilities are unequally distributed: in particular, working-class members are less likely to contribute to a high standard of deliberation.
2
Samuelsson, Martin. "Deliberativ demokrati i den norska skolan - Ger lärare uttryck för deliberativa uppfattningar när det kommer till demokrati och demokratiutbildning?" Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk 22, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 47–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.48059/uod.v22i1.984.
Full text
3
Englund, Tomas. "Moralisk omdömesbildning genom deliberativ kommunikation - en ansats inspirerad av Dewey." Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk 25, no. 3 (January 1, 2016): 105–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.48059/uod.v25i3.1067.
Full text
4
Fishkin, James, Thad Kousser, Robert C. Luskin, and Alice Siu. "Deliberative Agenda Setting: Piloting Reform of Direct Democracy in California." Perspectives on Politics 13, no. 4 (December 2015): 1030–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592715002297.
Full textAbstract:
Can the people deliberate to set the agenda for direct democracy in large scale states? How might such an institution work? The 2011 California Deliberative Poll piloted a solution to this problem helping to produce proposals that went to the ballot and also to the legislature. The paper reports on how this pilot worked and what it suggests about a possible institution to solve the deliberative agenda setting problem. The legislative proposal passed the legislature but the ballot proposition (Prop 31) failed. However, we show that the proposals actually deliberated on by the people might well have passed if not encumbered by additional elements not deliberated on by the public that drew opposition. The paper ends with an outline of how the process of deliberative agenda setting for the initiative might work, vetting proposals once every two years that could get on the ballot for a greatly reduced cost in signature collections. Adding deliberation to the agenda setting process would allow for a thoughtful and informed public will formation to determine the agenda for direct democracy.
5
Paul, L. A., and John Quiggin. "REAL WORLD PROBLEMS." Episteme 15, no. 3 (July 25, 2018): 363–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.28.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTIn the real world, there can be constraints on rational decision-making: there can be limitations on what I can know and on what you can know. There can also be constraints on my ability to deliberate or on your ability to deliberate. It is useful to know what the norms of rational deliberation should be in ideal contexts, for fully informed agents, in an ideal world. But it is also useful to know what the norms of rational deliberation should be in the actual world, in non-ideal contexts, for imperfectly informed agents, especially for big, life-changing decisions. That is, we want to know how to deliberate as best we can, given the real-world limitations on what we can know, and given real-world limitations on how we are able to deliberate. In this paper, our concern is with the norms of rational deliberation in certain, important, non-ideal contexts, where the reasoning occurs from the agent's first person, subjective point of view. The norms governing the process of deliberation for real people in the sorts of non-ideal contexts we'll consider need to reflect the way that real agents, with an incomplete grasp on the facts and an imperfect ability to deliberate, can be expected to proceed. Our central contention is that framing and exploring the deliberative process from the first person perspective allows us to uncover and explore important, real-world constraints on boundedly rational agents deliberating from the subjective perspective.
6
Dewansyah, Bilal. "MODEL KAMPANYE DELIBERATIF DALAM DESAIN PILKADA SERENTAK: SEBUAH GAGASAN PERUBAHAN." Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 4, no. 1 (April 30, 2015): 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v4i1.46.
Full textAbstract:
<p>Dalam diskursus demokrasi deliberatif pada masa Pemilu, model kampanye deliberatif masih diperdebatkan. Model tersebut dapat membuka akses informasi yang komprehensif guna memperluas pertimbangan para pemilih sebelum masa pemungutan suara. Model kampanye ini merupakan suatu proposal perubahan agar kampanye dapat dijadikan sebagai ruang musyawarah yang lebih rasional untuk mengelaborasi visi dan misi calon dengan konstituen. Terdapat masalah penting yang dielaborasi: (1) mengapa deliberasi demokratis saat kampanye menjadi penting dalam Pilkada? (2) bagaimana bentuk kampanye deliberatif dalam desain Pilkada serentak? Secara kelimuan, pendekatan yang digunakan bersifat interdispliner yang memadukan pendekatan hukum untuk mengevaluasi peraturan perundang-undangan terkait. Berdasarkan pembahasan, dapat disimpulkan kampanye Pilkada saat ini bersifat adversarial, tidak memberikan informasi yang cukup dan berimbang, serta seringkali materi kampanye tidak rasional secara normatif. Penulis menyarankan, jika bentuk kampanye deliberatif hendak diakomodasi sebagai mekanisme resmi Pilkada, sebaiknya dapat dimulai dengan mengubah pranata uji publik yang pernah diatur dalam UU No. 1 Tahun 2015, dari forum yang bersifat formalitas dan elitis menjadi forum publik yang deliberatif.</p><p>Deliberative campaign model remains debatable in the discourses of deliberative democracy during recent election period. This model can open the access of information comprehensively which may expand electors’ deliberation before the election day. It is also a proposal for a reform so that a campaign may serve as a more rational deliberatiion room for elaborating the vission and mission of the candidates with the constituents. There are some important issues that are elaborated: (1) Why democratic deliberation become important in local elections for regional leeaders during the campaign? (2) How is the model of deliberative campaign in the design of simultaneous local elections of regional leaders? Scientifically, the interdisiplinary approaches is used combined with the legal approach in evaluating related laws and regulations. Based on the research, it can be concluded that the current campaign of local elections for regional leaders is adversial, it does not provide sufficient and balanced information, as well as it is often be found that the campaign materials are normatively irrational. The author sugested, if this model of deliberative campaign should be accomodated as a formal mechanism of the local elections for regional leaders, it can be started by amending the procedure of public test stipulated in Law Number 1 of 2015, from formalistic and elitist forum to a deliberative public forum.</p>
7
Uhr, John. "Testing Deliberative Democracy: The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum." Government and Opposition 35, no. 2 (April 2000): 189–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00023.
Full textAbstract:
THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES AUSTRALIAN REFERENDUM PRACTICE WITH the aim of contributing to the growing international debate over concepts of deliberative democracy, defined in terms of democratic regimes structured to maximize community deliberation in public decision-making. Theories of deliberative democracy go beyond earlier approaches to participatory democracy by specifying in greater detail the nature of the deliberative process in which citizens should be able to participate and of the importance of institutions of civil society to an effective deliberative process. The focus on ideals of public deliberation ref lects the ambition of deliberative democrats (the ‘deliberati’ if you will) to ground political decision-making in norms of shared public reason. Where earlier approaches to participatory democracy investigated rights to political participation, current approaches to deliberative democracy also investigate responsibilities of political participants – particularly responsibilities to comply with norms of rational political deliberation.
8
Jæger, Birgit, Erling Jelsøe, Louise Philips, and Annika Agger. "Borgernes stemmer i klimadebatten – hvilken vej blæser de globale vinde?" Dansk Sociologi 23, no. 1 (March 22, 2012): 31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v23i1.4037.
Full textAbstract:
Det globale arrangement World Wide Views on Global Warming (WWViews) var et innovativt eksperiment med borgerinddragelse i komplicerede videnskabelige og tekniske problemstillinger. Formål med WWViews var at skabe en fælles global borgerstemme, hvis budskaber skulle kommunikeres til de politiske delegationer, der skulle mødes på FNs klimakonference COP 15 i København i december 2009. Denne artikel er baseret på et empirisk studie af det WWViews arrangement, der blev gennemført i København. Teoretisk trækker vi på teorier om deliberativt demokrati og teorier om borgerinddragelse i tekniske og videnskabelige problemstillinger. Analysen fokuserer på, hvordan borgernes dialog blev institutionelt rammesat som en deliberativ proces. Analysen inkluderer således refleksioner over, hvordan processen var designet, hvordan forskellige typer af viden og ekspertidentiteter blev konstrueret og forhandlet, samt hvordan deltagerne oplevede at være en del af arrangementet. Eftervirkningerne af arrangementet, herunder relationen til COP 15, bliver vurderet i den afsluttende diskussion om den fremtidige brug af WWViews som metode til global borgerinddragelse.
ENGELSK ABSTRACT:
Birgit Jæger, Erling Jelsøe, Louise Phillips and Annika Agger: Citizens’ Voices in the Climate Debate: Which Way Does the Global Wind Blow?
The global event World Wide Views on Global Warming (WWViews) was an innovative experiment with public engagement in science and technology, aiming to create a ”global citizen voice” on climate change. The purpose of WWViews was to convey the opinions of ordinary citizens to political decision-makers at The United Nations Climate Summit, COP 15, in Copenhagen in December 2009. This article is based on a study of the Danish WWViews event, drawing on theoretical perspectives of deliberative democracy and studies of public engagement with science. The focus of the article is on the manner in which citizen deliberations were institutionally framed as an exercise in deliberative democracy. The analysis includes reflections on how the process was designed, how different types of knowledge and expert identities were constructed and negotiated, and how the participants experienced being a part of the event. The implications of the event and its relation to COP 15 are also considered in the discussion about WWViews as an innovative design for global public engagement in science and technology.
Key words: Public engagement, deliberative democracy, climate changes, global citizen voice.
9
Martínez-Bascuñán, Máriam. "Misgivings on Deliberative Democracy: Revisiting the Deliberative Framework." World Political Science 12, no. 2 (November 1, 2016): 195–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/wps-2016-0006.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the last few years, the Deliberative Framework has become the main model in the consolidation of democratic processes. Deliberative theorists argue that deliberation helps to promote the democratic level of our societies, and they have good reasons to support this view. This article, however, is critical with some of these claims, questioning the widespread assumption of an existing connection between deliberation and democracy. With this objective in mind, we will examine the following three questions: Who deliberates? Under what conditions does deliberation take place? What is the content of deliberation? Once the potential repressive components of deliberation are made clear, we try to reach some normative considerations regarding how to promote certain mechanisms of deliberation that are in fact more in line with deliberative emancipation ideas and, as such, better assertions for promoting democracy.
10
BARABAS, JASON. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions." American Political Science Review 98, no. 4 (November 2004): 687–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404041425.
Full textAbstract:
Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.
11
Lin, Chun-wen. "Modeling the Association between Deliberative Beliefs and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Teachers." International Education Studies 10, no. 5 (April 29, 2017): 188. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n5p188.
Full textAbstract:
Aristotle proposed that deliberation in the political arena facilitates citizens’ abilities to deliberate about the ultimate interests of human beings, identify the highest human benefit achievable given the circumstances, and develop moral virtues and good deeds. Appealing to Aristotelian deliberation, this study investigates the relationships among normative deliberative beliefs, personal deliberative beliefs, and organizational citizenship behavior among senior/vocational high school teachers. A survey was completed by 202 Taiwanese senior/vocational high school teachers. The results, derived from structural equation modeling, reveal that the direct contribution of normative deliberative beliefs to organizational citizenship behavior was rather weak, but personal deliberative beliefs contribute significantly to the organizational citizenship behavior in teachers. Implications for these findings are discussed.
12
Schäfer, Andreas, and Wolfgang Merkel. "Emanzipation oder Reaktion: Wie konservativ ist die deliberative Demokratie?" Politische Vierteljahresschrift 61, no. 3 (March 19, 2020): 449–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-020-00232-8.
Full textAbstract:
Zusammenfassung Ist die deliberative Demokratie ein konservatives Modell? Beruht es auf Mechanismen, die in systematischer Weise seinen emanzipatorischen Anspruch unterminieren? Der Aufsatz beantwortet diese Frage im Anschluss an KritikerInnen der deliberativen Demokratie in Hinblick auf drei Dimensionen. Die zeitliche Dimension betreffend wird untersucht, inwieweit das deliberative Modell einen den Status quo bewahrenden Charakter hat. In der sachlichen Dimension wird eine Tendenz zur Entpolitisierung diskutiert. Für die soziale Dimension thematisiert der Aufsatz die potenzielle Exklusion bestimmter sozialer Gruppen und ihrer Perspektiven aus dem Deliberationsprozess. In Auseinandersetzung mit einschlägigen Ansätzen der deliberativen Demokratietheorie und mit Befunden der empirischen Deliberationsforschung gelangt der Aufsatz zu einem differenzierten Bild. Demnach lassen sich potenziell konservierende Tendenzen in der deliberativen Demokratie auffinden. Gleichzeitig wird argumentiert, dass diese Tendenzen vermeidbar sind, wenn einerseits das genuin kritische Potenzial deliberativer Praxis gegenüber anderen Elementen des Modells hervorgehoben und andererseits die Notwendigkeit der institutionellen Einbettung deliberativer Prozesse in Verfahren der repräsentativen Demokratie berücksichtigt wird.
13
PENDERGRAFT, GARRETT. "Against deliberation restrictions." Religious Studies 50, no. 3 (March 28, 2014): 341–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034412514000043.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractTraditional views about God and about deliberation seem to imply that we need a deliberation restriction on the concept of divine omniscience. I will argue, however, that this deliberation restriction is both irrelevant and unnecessary. It is irrelevant because there is no time at which God needs to deliberate; and it is unnecessary because even if God does deliberate, it's possible for him to do so while knowing what the results of that deliberation will be. And because this possibility of deliberating despite knowing the results holds for deliberation in general, my argument provides useful (and perhaps surprising) results not only for discussions of the divine attributes, but also for broader discussions of deliberation itself.
14
Loftager, Jørn. "Erik Oddvar Eriksen (red.), Deliberativ Politikk. Demokrati i teori og praksis, Oslo:Tano, 1995,255 s." Politica 28, no. 1 (January 1, 1996): 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/politica.v28i1.68003.
Full text
15
Cohen, Yishai. "Deliberating in the presence of manipulation." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48, no. 1 (2018): 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1339177.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAccording to deliberation compatibilism, rational deliberation is compatible with the belief that one’s actions are causally determined by factors beyond one’s control. This paper offers a counterexample to recent accounts of rational deliberation that entail deliberation compatibilism. The counterexample involves a deliberator who believes that whichever action she performs will be the result of deterministic manipulation. It is further argued that there is no relevant difference between the purported counterexample and ordinary doxastic circumstances in which a determinist deliberates.
16
Di Mauro, Danilo, and Irena Fiket. "Debating Europe, transforming identities: assessing the impact of deliberative poll treatment on identity." Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 47, no. 3 (January 16, 2017): 267–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2016.26.
Full textAbstract:
Although there is a considerable amount of talk about transformative power of deliberation on identity, the debate in literature remains highly theoretical in underlying the benefits of deliberative model for EU Integration. So far, little empirical evidence is available on the actual impact of deliberation.Can deliberation enhance European identity?We specifically address this question by using deliberative polling quasi-experiment that involved random sample of 348 European citizens in 2 days deliberationon issuesof Europeanconcern.The comparison of citizens’ sense of belonging to both EU and nation states before and after deliberation, allowed us to explore the effects of deliberation on identity and further test it against the control group. The analyses show that when European citizens are enabled to deliberate on European issues beyond national borders their exclusive national identity decreases and they become more community minded. The observed transformation of identities is further analyzed in order to explore the relationship between European and national identity. The analyses indicate that even after deliberative treatment in which European identity has been activated the relationship between multiple identities remains compatible.
17
Garsten, Bryan. "Rhetoric and Human Separateness." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 30, no. 2 (2013): 210–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000539.
Full textAbstract:
In his account of how each of us deliberates about what to do, Aristotle remarks that we do not always trust ourselves on important matters and so sometimes take counsel from others. Taking counsel from others is, in some ways, merely an expansion of the internal activity of deliberation; the suggestions come from other people rather than from our ownminds, but the judgment about them remains our own. In other ways, however, taking counsel is quite different from deliberating with oneself. These differences are the subject matter of the art of rhetoric, as Aristotle understands it. The paper compares the political relationship at work in deliberative rhetoric with slavery, which collapses the separateness of persons, and with friendship, which preserves it. And suggests that the importance of anger in Aristotle’s treatment of rhetoric can be understood as a reflection on the implications of human separateness.
18
Schauer, Frederick, and Bruce Ackerman. "Deliberating about Deliberation." Michigan Law Review 90, no. 6 (May 1992): 1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289406.
Full text
19
Magalhães, Suzana de Cassia Serrão, and Danila Cal. "DELIBERAÇÃO E COMUNICAÇÃO: APROXIMAÇÕES CONCEITUAIS PARA A CRIAÇÃO DE CAPACIDADES DELIBERATIVAS EM ESCOLAS." Aturá - Revista Pan-Amazônica de Comunicação 3, no. 1 (January 16, 2019): 48–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.2526-8031.2019v3n1p48.
Full textAbstract:
O presente trabalho tem como objetivo compreender como o processo comunicativo contribui para a realização de capacitações em deliberação em escolas públicas no Brasil. Aborda-se os conceitos de dupla afetação e reflexividade (MEAD, 2013), deliberação pública e agir comunicativo (HABERMAS, 1997, 2003), e pedagogia deliberativa (SHAFFER et al., 2017). Adiante, o estudo avança para desentranhar o processo comunicativo (BRAGA, 2011) dos conceitos, por meio de uma abordagem relacional da comunicação (FRANÇA, 2016). O trabalho traz contribuições teóricas para promover a prática e o treinamento em deliberação, em que os sujeitos implicados podem, por meio de processos argumentativos, estimular e provocar transformações políticas e sociais.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: agir comunicativo; deliberação; educação; pedagogia deliberativa; processos comunicacionais.
ABSTRACT
The present paper aims to understand how the communicative process contributes to enable deliberative capacities in youngs in public schools in Brazil. The concepts of double affectation and reflexivity (MEAD, 2013), public deliberation and communicative action (Habermas, 1997, 2003) and deliberative pedagogy (SHAFFER et al., 2017) are discussed. Later, the study advances to describe the communicative process (BRAGA, 2011) in the concepts, through relational communication (FRANCE, 2016). The work brings theoretical contributions to promote practice and training in deliberation, in which the subjects involved can through stimulating processes and provoke political and social transformations.
KEYWORDS: communicative action; deliberation; education; deliberative pedagogy; communicational process.
RESUMEN
El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo comprender cómo el proceso comunicativo contribuye a la realización de capacitaciones en deliberación en escuelas públicas en Brasil. Se abordan los conceptos de doble afectación y reflexividad (MEAD, 2013), deliberación pública y acción comunicativa (HABERMAS, 1997, 2003), y pedagogía deliberativa (SHAFFER et al., 2017). Adelante, el estudio avanza para desentrañar el proceso comunicativo (BRAGA, 2011) de los conceptos, através de un abordaje relacional de la comunicación (FRANCIA, 2016). El trabajo trae contribuciones teóricas para promover la práctica y el entrenamiento en deliberación, en que los sujetos implicados pueden por medio de procesos argumentativos estimular y provocar transformaciones políticas y sociales.
PALABRAS CLAVE: acción comunicativa; deliberación; educación; pedagogia deliberativa; proceso comunicativo.
20
Seidman, Jeffrey. "Caring and the Boundary-Driven Structure of Practical Deliberation." Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3, no. 1 (June 2, 2017): 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v3i1.28.
Full textAbstract:
When a reasonable agent deliberates about what to do, she entertains only a limited range of possible courses of action. A theory of practical reasoning must therefore include an account of deliberative attention: an account that both explains the patterns of deliberative attention that reasonable agents typically display and allows us to see why these patterns of deliberative attention are reasonable. I offer such an account, built around two, central claims. (i) A reasonable agent who cares about some end is disposed to exclude courses of action which she believes to be incompatible with that end from the range of possibilities that she will entertain as options in practical deliberation. As I shall put it, an agent’s cares establish deliberative boundaries for her practical thought. (ii) The stability of a deliberative boundary varies with the depth of the care that explains it. These two claims motivate the Boundary-Driven Model of the path that a reasonable agent’s deliberative attention will take in temporally extended deliberation. If we locate the model within a maximizing conception of practical rationality, then boundary-driven deliberation, of the sort that the model describes, can be understood and justified instrumentally, as a heuristic device. But if we suppose that there is no single index of value that successful practical choice maximizes, then boundary-driven deliberation is partly constitutive of reasonableness in practical thought. It allows an agent facing plural and incommensurable values to frame her deliberative problems narrowly enough that, in conjunction with deliberative devices which are not part of the model but which are compatible with it, she may be able to reach a non-arbitrary decision – and so give a determinate, verdictive sense to the phrase “the best course of action available to me” in cases in which a determinate meaning for this phrase would otherwise be lacking.
21
Garcez, Lucas Nogueira. "Redes Sociais e Democracia Deliberativa." Revista de Direito, Governança e Novas Tecnologias 1, no. 1 (December 6, 2015): 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.26668/indexlawjournals/2526-0049/2015.v1i1.66.
Full textAbstract:
Este artigo pretende conectar aspectos gerais das teorias deliberativas de democracia a mecanismos específicos disponíveis aos usuários das redes sociais. Aponta-se quais ferramentas das redes sociais colaboram com a constituição de uma esfera pública e o desenvolvimento de uma democracia deliberativa, especialmente quando incorporadas pela comunicação do Estado. Para tanto, reconstruímos sistematicamente a estrutura teórica da democracia deliberativa e, em seguida, avaliamos ferramentas específicas, ilustrando-as com exemplos nacionais de seu uso. Julgamos que esse tipo de análise é relevante para que se determine no futuro como estruturar a comunicação entre órgãos estatais e sociedade, de maneira a maximizar seu potencial deliberativo.
22
Barker, Derek W. M. "Deliberative Justice and Collective Identity." Political Theory 45, no. 1 (August 3, 2016): 116–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591715609407.
Full textAbstract:
Drawing upon insights from virtue ethics, this essay develops a concept of collective identity specifically suited to deliberative democracy: a virtues-centered theory of deliberative justice. Viewing democratic legitimacy as a political phenomenon, we must account for more than the formal rules that must be satisfied according to deontological theories of deliberative democracy. I argue that common approaches to deliberative democracy are unable to account for the motivations of deliberation, or ensure that citizens have the cognitive skills to deliberate well. Next, I engage with critics of deliberative democracy who have moved toward broader and more humanistic concepts of deliberation but have stopped short of conceiving of justice as a virtue and, in their own way, neglected questions of collective identity. I reconstruct justice as a virtue from a deliberative perspective, combining virtue ethics’ emphasis on habituation with a weaker sense of collective identity that allows for value pluralism and disagreement, consistent with deliberative democracy. That is, deliberative democracy requires a shared and habituated civic culture of mutual understanding of differences. Finally, drawing from discourse on race in contemporary American politics, I conclude with brief illustrations of the need for a collective identity based on mutual understanding. Although deliberative democracy does not require a thick or intense sense of social solidarity, it does need citizens to share habits, inclinations, and capacities to engage in communication across their differences.
23
Breen, Michael G., and Baogang He. "Moderating polarised positions on questions of national identity and sovereignty: Deliberative surveys on federalism in Myanmar." International Area Studies Review 23, no. 1 (September 4, 2019): 93–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2233865919871703.
Full textAbstract:
Myanmar is in an important phase of its political transition. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, which is central to peacebuilding and democratisation, is present and being progressed through parallel elite level forums. However, these elite negotiations have serious limitations, as they fail to reach out to citizens, and contribute to polarisation and the perpetuation of extreme views regarding federalism. To address the absence of public deliberation on federalism in Myanmar, we organised five deliberative events based on the Deliberative Polling® methodology. This paper discusses some of the key findings and demonstrates how they can contribute to federal constitutional reform in Myanmar. It shows that when debating fundamental issues relating to identity and national sovereignty, public deliberation has moderation effects even in conflict-ridden deeply divided societies. Indeed, questions that related to the institutions associated with identity and religion had the highest quality of deliberation, opinion change and moderation. These more moderate and considered deliberated perspectives are of great value for dealing with the polarisation issue that Myanmar faces and demonstrate the potential of deliberative democracy tools to supplement and moderate electoral democracy and elite-driven constitutional change processes.
24
Patry, Marc W. "Attractive but Guilty: Deliberation and the Physical Attractiveness Bias." Psychological Reports 102, no. 3 (June 2008): 727–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.102.3.727-733.
Full textAbstract:
The current study examined the effect of jury deliberation on the tendency for mock jurors to find attractive defendants guilty less often. It was expected that there would be an interaction between group deliberation (yes or no) and defendant's appearance (plain-looking or attractive). It was hypothesized that mock jurors who did not deliberate would be more likely to find a plain-looking defendant guilty and that deliberation would mitigate this effect. The study was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. Participants were assigned randomly to one of four conditions: attractive defendant/deliberation, attractive defendant/no deliberation, plain-looking defendant/deliberation, and plain-looking defendant/no deliberation. A total of 172 undergraduates from a small, rural college in Vermont contributed to this study: mock jurors were 70 men and 52 women, ages ranged from 18 to 52 years ( M=20.5, SD = 4.9). The hypothesis was supported. Mock jurors who did not deliberate were more likely to find the plain-looking defendant guilty, whereas mock jurors who deliberated were more likely to find the attractive defendant guilty.
25
Gastil, John. "The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, no. 1 (October 13, 2018): 271–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639.
Full textAbstract:
Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants’ understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.
26
Beauvais, Edana. "Deliberation and Non-Deliberative Communication." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 1 (2020): 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.387.
Full text
27
Garver, Eugene. "Deliberative Rhetoric and Ethical Deliberation." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 30, no. 2 (2013): 189–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000538.
Full textAbstract:
Central to Aristotle’s Ethics is the virtue of phronēsis, a good condition of the rational part of the soul that determines the means to ends set by the ethical virtues. Central to the Rhetoric is the art of presenting persuasive deliberative arguments about how to secure the ends set by the audience and its constitution. What is the relation between the art and the virtue of deliberation? Rhetorical facility can be a deceptive facsimile of virtuous reasoning, but there can be more fruitful connections as well. In particular, the experience of judging rhetorical arguments can aid in the development of phronēsis through exercising those aspects of phronēsis that are not so intimately tied to the ethical virtues. Judging the advice given by others leads to excellence in reasoning practically for oneself.
28
Olivares, Nicolás Emanuel. "Deliberativismo republicano y control constitucional." Cuestiones Constitucionales Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 1, no. 38 (December 13, 2017): 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iij.24484881e.2018.38.11874.
Full textAbstract:
La democracia deliberativa recepta una particular concepción de legitimidad democrática, según la cual toda norma, institución o medida política debe ser justificada mediante un proceso deliberativo público. Por un lado, la principal función de este concepto es proveer criterios normativos desde los cuales evaluar las instituciones políticas reales. Por otro, a más de ciertos elementos normativos básicos, cabe advertir que el concepto de democracia deliberativa ha adoptado diversas concepciones rivales, pudiendo ellas ser clasificadas en liberales, republicanas y críticas. Actualmente asistimos a una notoria proliferación de concepciones deliberativas republicanas. Es por ello, que en este trabajo nos proponemos reconstruir y evaluar las respuestas brindadas por renombrados deliberativistas republicanos, a la par que ofrecer una propuesta de diseño institucional alternativa.
29
Wiesner, Andre´. "Praising deliberation, deliberating praise." Pretexts: Literary and Cultural Studies 12, no. 2 (November 2003): 199–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1015549032000177131.
Full text
30
Silva, Tarcízio Roberto da. "Práticas Vernaculares de Moderação Online em Grupos do Facebook." Paradoxos 5, no. 1 (July 10, 2020): 36–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/par-v5n1-2020-53624.
Full textAbstract:
O debate sobre moderação online é central nos estudos propositivos sobre iniciativas públicas deliberativas. A literatura científica sobre a questão propôs dezenas de critérios para mensuração da qualidade deliberativa dos ambientes, aplicadas na ideação e análise das iniciativas. Com a multiplicação dos espaços digitais relativamente abertos, tais como plataformas de mídias sociais, as práticas de coordenação, moderação e definição de regras para grupos de discussão e comunidades online parecem guardar similaridades emergentes com critérios deliberativos. O presente artigo discute a equivalência destes critérios a partir da análise dos textos de “Regras da Comunidade” em 15 grupos no Facebook sem fins deliberativos.
31
Hobson, Kersty. "On the Modern and the Nonmodern in Deliberative Environmental Democracy." Global Environmental Politics 9, no. 4 (November 2009): 64–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.64.
Full textAbstract:
The “deliberative turn” in green political theory and applied environmental decision-making is now well-established. However, questions remain about the applicability of its concepts and methods to non-Western or “nonmodern” contexts, to use a term from Gupte and Barlett's 2007 article in this journal that is the stimulus to this article. In such places the societal pre-conditions of modernity deemed theoretically necessary for “authentic deliberation” to occur are mostly absent. Yet, authentic deliberation does take place, prompting questions about the geographical and cultural bias of the deliberative environmental democratic project. This article takes up such questions, arguing that in deliberative theory modernity is more than a bias, which is highlighted when the nonmodern is counted in. Instead, in its noun-form modernity suggests a particular type of deliberating subject, replete with specific capacities and knowledge, which the nonmodern is, in true binary fashion, deemed to lack. This article draws on qualitative data from deliberative workshops in northern New Mexico, USA, to argue that such categorizations do not hold up to empirical or conceptual scrutiny, particularly in light of Bruno Latour's work on modernity and the Modern. Thus, this article argues that deliberative environmental democracy research should therefore be recast as an ethnographic and context-based project, and explores how such a project could be carried out.
32
Rollo, Toby. "Everyday Deeds: Enactive Protest, Exit, and Silence in Deliberative Systems." Political Theory 45, no. 5 (July 28, 2016): 587–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591716661222.
Full textAbstract:
The deliberative systems approach is a recent innovation within the tradition of deliberative democratic theory. It signals an important shift in focus from the political legitimacy produced within isolated and formal sites of deliberation (e.g., Parliament or deliberative mini-publics), to the legitimacy produced by a number of diverse interconnected sites. In this respect, the deliberative systems (DS) approach is better equipped to identify and address defects arising from the systemic influences of power and coercion. In this article, I examine one of the least explored and least understood defects: the exclusion of non-speaking political actors generated by the uniform privileging of speech in all sites within a system. Using the examples of prefigurative protest, Indigenous refusal to deliberate, and the non-deliberative agency of disabled citizens, I argue that the DS approach allows theorists to better understand forms of domination related to the imposition of speech on those who are either unwilling or unable to speak.
33
Nakagawa, Yoshito. "Theorizing Postcolonial Deliberation and Deliberative Peacebuilding." Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 12, no. 2 (April 3, 2018): 253–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1464353.
Full text
34
Weinmann, Carina. "The normative value of political entertainment: Deliberative antecedents and consequences of media users’ entertainment experiences." Studies in Communication and Media 8, no. 2 (2019): 135–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2019-2-135.
Full textAbstract:
Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den normativen Bedingungen und Wirkungen des Unterhaltungserlebens von Mediennutzerinnen und -nutzern im Kontext politischer Medieninhalte. Auf Basis von Zwei-Prozess-Modellen der Unterhaltung sowie der deliberativen Demokratietheorie wird dabei zum einen ausgearbeitet, inwiefern sich spezifische normative Merkmale politischer Medienangebote auf das Unterhaltungserleben von Mediennutzer/-innen auswirken. Zum anderen wird untersucht, inwiefern dieses Unterhaltungserleben zu internen deliberativen Denkprozessen beitragen kann. Überprüft werden die theoretisch hergeleiteten Effekte und Zusammenhänge durch zwei Befragungsstudien, von denen eine experimentell, die andere korrelativ angelegt ist. Insgesamt ergeben sich aus den Studien gemischte Befunde im Hinblick auf die Auswirkung deliberativer inhaltlicher Merkmale auf das Unterhaltungserleben von Rezipient/-innen. Allerdings zeigen beide Studien, dass sich insbesondere das eudaimonische Unterhaltungserleben von Mediennutzer/-innen positiv auf deliberative Denkprozesse auswirkt.
35
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 2 (June 2011): 269–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711000892.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China is now permeated by a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian concentrations of power with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation is usually associated with democracy, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments such as votes and rights. Deliberation is a mode of communication involving persuasion-based influence. Combinations of non-inclusive power and deliberative influence—authoritarian deliberation—are readily identifiable in China, probably reflecting failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China: the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule, or deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
36
Chirawurah, Dennis, James Fishkin, Niagia Santuah, Alice Siu, Ayaga Bawah, Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic, and Kathleen Giles. "Deliberation for Development: Ghana’s First Deliberative Poll." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 15, no. 1 (April 23, 2019): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.314.
Full text
37
Bear, Adam, and David G. Rand. "Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 4 (January 11, 2016): 936–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517780113.
Full textAbstract:
Humans often cooperate with strangers, despite the costs involved. A long tradition of theoretical modeling has sought ultimate evolutionary explanations for this seemingly altruistic behavior. More recently, an entirely separate body of experimental work has begun to investigate cooperation’s proximate cognitive underpinnings using a dual-process framework: Is deliberative self-control necessary to reign in selfish impulses, or does self-interested deliberation restrain an intuitive desire to cooperate? Integrating these ultimate and proximate approaches, we introduce dual-process cognition into a formal game-theoretic model of the evolution of cooperation. Agents play prisoner’s dilemma games, some of which are one-shot and others of which involve reciprocity. They can either respond by using a generalized intuition, which is not sensitive to whether the game is one-shot or reciprocal, or pay a (stochastically varying) cost to deliberate and tailor their strategy to the type of game they are facing. We find that, depending on the level of reciprocity and assortment, selection favors one of two strategies: intuitive defectors who never deliberate, or dual-process agents who intuitively cooperate but sometimes use deliberation to defect in one-shot games. Critically, selection never favors agents who use deliberation to override selfish impulses: Deliberation only serves to undermine cooperation with strangers. Thus, by introducing a formal theoretical framework for exploring cooperation through a dual-process lens, we provide a clear answer regarding the role of deliberation in cooperation based on evolutionary modeling, help to organize a growing body of sometimes-conflicting empirical results, and shed light on the nature of human cognition and social decision making.
38
Cammack, Daniela. "Aristotle’S Denial of Deliberation About Ends." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 30, no. 2 (2013): 228–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000540.
Full textAbstract:
Although Aristotle stated that we do not deliberate about ends, it is widely agreed that he did not mean it. Eager to save him from implying that ends are irrational, scholars have argued that he did recognize deliberation about the specification of ends. This claim misunderstands Aristotle’s conceptions of both deliberation and ends. Deliberation is not the whole of reasoning: it is a subcategory concerning only practical matters within our power. Not deliberating about something thus does not preclude other forms of reflection on it, such as that involved in specification. Yet on Aristotle’s view, our ends are not in our power. They are generated not by individual choice but by nature, which in the case of human beings includes roles for both language and politics. Ends are thus beyond individual deliberation, though not beyond reason. This is no minor point. The claim that human beings can act rationally depends upon it.
39
Tang, Beibei. "Deliberation and governance in Chinese middle-class neighborhoods." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (December 2018): 663–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000282.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper examines the mechanisms of deliberation and conflict resolution in Chinese urban middle-class residential communities. Along with the rise of private home ownership and urban middle-class residential estates, disputes and conflicts have risen between the residents, resident self-elected organization (homeowner associations), real estate developer and property management companies, and the local government. Through the lens of deliberation in middle-class neighborhoods, this paper analyzes (1) how and to what extent deliberation is introduced and employed as an instrumental tool by the local government to achieve their goal of maintaining social stability. (2) In what ways and to what extent deliberation has served as part of governance strategies. And (3) whether and how the state and non-state actors interact with each other during this process to produce more democratic governance under the Party-state's authoritarian rule. This paper adopts a systemic approach to examine authoritarian deliberation as a neighborhood governance strategy. The findings suggest that (1) deliberation has become an instrumental tool for conflict resolution introduced by the local government to middle-class neighborhoods. Residents’ Committees, on behalf of the state, has become key coordinator and mediator during the deliberation process. (2) The systemic approach of authoritarian deliberation includes a mix of deliberative elements and other features of political culture, traditions, strategies, and institutions. The dynamic interactions between deliberation and authoritarianism, between deliberative and non-deliberative features, and between formal deliberative meetings and informal deliberative talks all contribute to a functional deliberative system.
40
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation in China." Daedalus 146, no. 3 (July 2017): 155–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00454.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China increasingly involves a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian command with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation and democracy are usually found together, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments like votes and rights. Deliberation is the kind of communication that involves persuasion-based influence. Combinations of command-based power and deliberative influence – like authoritarian deliberation – are now pervading Chinese politics, likely a consequence of the failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China. One possibility is that the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule. An alternative possibility is that deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
41
Hunt, David P. "Omniprescient Agency." Religious Studies 28, no. 3 (September 1992): 351–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034412500021715.
Full textAbstract:
The principle that(P1) One cannot deliberate over what one already (prior to deliberating) knows is going to happen,when suitably qualified, has seemed to many philosophers to be about as secure a truth as one is likely to find in this life.Fortunately, (P1) poses little restriction on human deliberation, since the conditions which would trigger its prohibition seldom arise for us: our knowledge of the future is intermittent at best, and those things of which we do have advance knowledge (e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow) are not the sorts of things over which we would deliberate in any case. But matters appear to stand otherwise with an all-knowing agent such as God is traditionally conceived to be; for what an omniprescient deity ‘already knows is going to happen’ iseverythingthat is going to happen; and if He cannot deliberate over such things, there is nothing over which He can deliberate.
42
TAUFIQ, Muhammad, Suhirman SUHIRMAN, Tubagus Furqon SOFHANI, and Benedictus KOMBAITAN. "Towards Deliberative Ideals with Informality: A Practical Study of Rural Planning in Indonesia." Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning 12, no. 1 (April 20, 2021): 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/jssp.2021.1.02.
Full textAbstract:
This article focuses on a specific discussion regarding how rural planning in Indonesia can provide an understanding of deliberative planning practice. It contributes to the literature related to deliberative planning in a non-western rural context. Primary data were collected from interviews with 23 respondents in Pematang Tengah village, Indonesia. Secondary data, consisting of scientific literature, research reports, and internet sources, were used, as well. Observations were conducted to reveal the way development projects are practically proposed in hamlet and village forums. Different stages of the process were identified and it was concluded that two deliberative mechanisms were used, more precisely directed deliberation and disjointed deliberation. Directed deliberation is an open dialogue that is overseen by all stakeholders. Alternatively, disjointed deliberation is conducted in a separate, informal arena and it is initiated by the local elites. The findings show that the disjointed deliberation in the informal arena can disturb the deliberative ideals, but it can also help to make the formal deliberation successful and fulfil the deliberative ideals.
43
Calder, Gideon. "Caring about Deliberation, Deliberating about Care." Ethics and Social Welfare 9, no. 2 (March 10, 2015): 130–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1005554.
Full text
44
PETTIT, PHILIP. "CONSTRUING SEN ON COMMITMENT." Economics and Philosophy 21, no. 1 (April 2005): 15–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266267104000367.
Full textAbstract:
Why does Sen maintain that people are capable of putting their own goals offline and deliberating and acting out of sheer commitment to others? How can he endorse such a rejection of the belief-desire model of agency? The paper canvasses three explanations and favors one that ascribes an unusual position to Sen: the belief that so far as agents remain in the belief-desire mould, they cannot deliberate on the basis of reasons other than those that derive from standing goals that form an integrated system. What he thinks of as deliberation on the basis of commitment is just the sort of deliberation that involves the formation of a novel, perhaps occasion-specific goal in which the good of another is prioritised.
45
Caluwaerts, Didier, and Kris Deschouwer. "Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium." European Political Science Review 6, no. 3 (November 1, 2013): 427–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773913000179.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, deliberative democracy has moved from a philosophical ideal into an empirical theory with numerous experiments testing the theoretical assumptions. Despite the wealth of evidence on the potential for deliberation, scholars have remained hesitant to test the theoretical premises under rather more adverse circumstances. This article, in contrast, tries to push deliberative scholarship to its edge by focusing on the viability of citizen deliberation in deeply divided societies. Our research questions are whether contact between citizens of competing segments undermines the potential for deliberation, and under which institutional conditions this is so. Based on a deliberative experiment in Belgium, in which we varied the group composition and the decision-making rule, we argue that decision rules are strong predictors of deliberative quality, but more importantly that the confrontation between citizens from both sides of the divide does not undermine the quality of deliberation. On the contrary even, our results indicate that the quality of intergroup deliberation is higher than that of intragroup deliberation, no matter what the rule.
46
Gersel, Johan, and Morten Sørensen Thaning. "The Plight to Choose: Cultivating Practical Deliberation in Management Learning and Education." Journal of Management Education 44, no. 5 (July 10, 2020): 663–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562920937034.
Full textAbstract:
Departing from discussions at Research in Management Learning & Education (RMLE) Unconferences, we identify the problem of practical deliberation: When faced with multiple, relevant theories that all demand to be given weight in a process of deliberation, how do management students, while drawing on these theories, justify their choice? Based on contemporary practical philosophy, we claim that students must aim for rational necessitation when practically deliberating about such decisions. Using the example of our teaching on a Master of Public Governance program at a major European business school, we delineate how we have employed a philosophical pedagogy to teach MBA students to practically deliberate in order to reach rational necessitation. With our theoretical and practical research, we aim to show how contemporary practical philosophy offers a distinct, original contribution to management learning and education in contrast with the traditional philosophies of education We end the article by suggesting and motivating five avenues of further research into the problem of practical deliberation in management learning and education.
47
Bohman, James. "La madurez de la democracia deliberativa." Co-herencia 13, no. 24 (June 2016): 105–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.17230/co-herencia.13.24.5.
Full textAbstract:
Reviso tres maneras diferentes como los ideales de la democracia deliberativa han cambiado a la luz de las preocupaciones prácticas sobre su viabilidad, es decir, haciendo cada vez más importante el problema de cómo este ideal puede acercarse a sociedades caracterizadas por profundos desacuerdos, problemas sociales de enorme complejidad e instrumentos inoperantes en sus instituciones existentes. En primer lugar, las teorías de la democracia deliberativa enfatizan el proceso mismo de la deliberación, y no sus condiciones y procedimientos ideales y contrafácticos. En segundo lugar, los demócratas deliberativos se interesan cada vez más en los problemas de la institucionalización, en hacer del voto, la regla de mayorías, la representación, los tribunales y el derecho constitucional, instituciones más deliberativas, en pro de una mayor democracia directa. En tercer lugar, los deliberativistas se ocupan de examinar y comparar los diferentes escenarios y procedimientos de la deliberación, señalando problemas empíricos y obstáculos que no siempre pueden anticiparse al recurrir únicamente a argumentos conceptuales.
48
Ovejero, Félix. "La teoría (de la secesión) de la minoría permanente a la luz de la democracia deliberativa." Las Torres de Lucca. International Journal of Political Philosophy 10, no. 18 (January 30, 2021): 45–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/tolu.74907.
Full textAbstract:
Este artículo utiliza la perspectiva de la democracia deliberativa para evaluar la teoría de la minoría permanente como posible motivo de secesión. Según esta teoría, los catalanes (o vascos) constituyen minorías permanentes que, en ningún caso, podrían obtener las mayorías parlamentarias que les permitan separarse. Históricamente, esta circunstancia habría propiciado las condiciones para un abuso permanente. Hoy en día, impediría el éxito de los procesos de secesión, lo que no dejaría otra alternativa que eludir los medios democráticos. El artículo concluye que este argumento resulta incompatible con los ideales de la democracia deliberativa. En el mejor de los casos, la teoría colapsa en la tesis de la secesión como reparación: si los intereses de la minoría han sido adecuadamente considerados en un proceso deliberativo, las decisiones de la mayoría están justificadas y por lo tanto no generan un derecho de secesión; si esos intereses han sido ignorados, las decisiones no cumplen con los estándares deliberativos y acaban en el clásico derecho a la secesión de la teoría de la reparación.
49
Ballacci, Giuseppe. "Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt." Theoria 66, no. 161 (December 1, 2019): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/th.2019.6616101.
Full textAbstract:
In the literature there are two well-established but opposite readings of Arendt: as an agonistic theorist and as a deliberative one. In between these two positions a smaller number of scholars have argued that in Arendt these two dimensions can to a large extent be reconciled. This paper follows this third path but tries to bring it one step further. In particular, it defends the idea that those scholars who have proposed this third reading of Arendt have fallen short of revealing the degree to which deliberation and agonism are, for her, interwoven. Through an original reading of Arendt’s views on judgment, persuasion, distinction and Eichmann’s banality, the paper clarifies why, for her, agonism and deliberation are not only compatible but actually mutually dependent. In other words, it clarifies why she believes that there can be no deliberation without agonism and no agonism without deliberation.
50
Sprain, Leah, and Laura Black. "Deliberative Moments: Understanding Deliberation as an Interactional Accomplishment." Western Journal of Communication 82, no. 3 (July 19, 2017): 336–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1347275.
Full text