Much of the appeal of deliberative democracy lies in its emancipatory promise to give otherwise disadvantaged groups a voice, and to grant them influence through reasoned argument. However, the precise mechanisms for delivery of this promise remain obscure. After reviewing Habermas's formulation of deliberation, the article draws on recent theories of argumentation to provide a more detailed account of such mechanisms. The article identifies the key emancipatory mechanism as explicitness in language. It outlines the primary modalities of this mechanism: expressing (...) differences of opinion, mobilising a shared standard of inference, and recognising and excluding fallacious appeals to irrelevant factors such as force or authority. It describes how these modalities are enhanced at a secondary, reflexive level that recognises the partiality and defeasibility of particular argumentative exchanges. Such qualifications, it is argued, support a model of deliberation across discourses that allows a clearer appreciation of its potential and limits. (shrink)

This paper examines the properties of the validity and scope of arguments as standards for evaluating the epistemic qualities of particular deliberative exchanges within a context of value pluralism where parties can hold differing views of the common good based on incommensurable basic values. In this context, the task of political decisions is to maximise the interests of all, only judging between internally coherent versions of the common good on the basis of their mutual impact. The paper argues open, democratic, (...) deliberation provides the best chance of discovering such a path, through developing mutual understanding across incommensurable positions. Identifying the validity and scope of a deliberative exchange enhances this potential. Any deliberative exchange may be characterised in terms of its validity – the reasons that support its conclusions – and scope – the unquestioned assumptions that mark the boundaries of that reasoning. The paper explains the epistemic role of these two features in developing understanding across plural positions. Clarity about the validity of an exchange reveals positions that can be shared. Acknowledgement of its scope avoids over-extending its conclusions and reveals how positions differ, providing the starting point for further deliberation about their co-ordination. The paper ends by drawing the conclusion that deliberation characterised in this way should be democratic and open. (shrink)

Recent work in the strategic-relational approach to explaining the relationship between structure and agency emphasises the significance of ideas, discourses, and the semiotic realm of symbols. However, this work does not yet offer an explanation of how discourses relate to symbols – how texts take on meaning. This article shows why this is needed. It then provides such an account of language use and learning in explicitly strategic-relational terms. That account both grounds strategic-relational concepts of discourse, and helps define them (...) more clearly. While complementing and strengthening such notions, it also provides an insight into the way particular discourses interrelate. In particular, the model presented here suggests the importance of the constructive and critical potential of reason, in enlarging the scope for critical syntheses across discourses, and guarding against hegemony. (shrink)

U clanku?Agonizam kao deliberacija? predlozio sam pomirenje izmedju agonisticke verzije demokratije Mufove, uz odredjene korekcije kako bi se ocuvala konzistentnost, i deliberacije. Ovde nudim odgovor na dve kritike ovog projekta koje su usledile: G?rs?zl? i Fives. Iako oba autora smatraju da nije moguce pomiriti agonizam i deliberaciju, oni to cine sa suprotnih pozicija. Gursozlu brani agonizam Mufove kao poseban i koherentan projekat na osnovu onoga sto smatra ispravnim razumevanjem njenog pojma hegemonije. Fajvs tvrdi da je njen pristup poseban ali nekoherentan, (...) i da zato treba da bude odbacen. Nasuprot ove dve suprotstavljene pozicije, nastojacu da pokazem ne samo da je moguca integracija agonizma i deliberacije, vec i da je veoma korisna kako za agonizam, tako i za deliberativnu teoriju. Oslobodjen kontradiktorne tvrdnje da je univerzalni racionalni konsenzus u principu nemoguce postici, agonizam se moze interpretirati kao teorija momenta razlike unutar sire deliberativne dijalektike koja pokusava da od parcijalnog, dodje do sireg konsenzusa. Ako ih posmatramo na taj nacin, mozemo da uvidimo kako se ova dva pristupa dopunjuju u traganju za zajednickim ciljevima, pre nego sto predstavljaju staticnu i nuznu opoziciju kako to smatraju kriticari kojima se u ovom clanku bavim. (shrink)