Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements: Transition Initiatives in the Public Sphere - Softcover

Felicetti, Andrea

Softcover

ISBN 10: 1786601656 ISBN 13: 9781786601650

Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018

Synopsis

By offering a critical assessment of deliberation in social movement organisations, this study identifies key aspects affecting their ability to pursue democratic deliberation and sheds new light on the role of community actors in deliberative democracy.

About this title

About the Author

Andrea Felicetti is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Center on Social Movement Studies (COSMOS), Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements

Transition Initiatives in the Public Sphere

By Andrea Felicetti

Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd.

Copyright © 2017 Andrea Felicetti
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-78660-165-0

Contents

List of Figures, ix, 
Acknowledgements, xi, 
Introduction and Structure of the Book, 1, 
1 Deliberative Capacity: From Deliberative Theory to Democratic Life, 7, 
2 Transition from a Deliberative Democratic Perspective, 33, 
3 Transition Connor: A Case Study, 55, 
4 Notari Città di Transizione: A Case Study, 75, 
5 Transition Dickson Hills: A Case Study, 99, 
6 Vaiai in Transizione: A Case Study, 121, 
7 Comparative Findings, 143, 
8 The Drivers of Deliberative Capacity, 157, 
Conclusions, 181, 
References, 201, 
Index, 219, 
About the Author, 227, 

CHAPTER 1

Deliberative Capacity

From Deliberative Theory to Democratic Life

SUMMARY

This chapter explores the idea of deliberative capacity, introduces the research methodology, and discusses previous work on deliberation in social movements. The first section presents deliberative capacity as a contribution to the wider systemic turn in deliberative democracy. A synthetic definition of the concept is also provided, as well as an illustration of how deliberative capacity can be and has been used in empirical research. The next section discusses in detail each of the three dimensions of deliberative capacity (authenticity, inclusivity and consequentiality) and their respective components. The concept of deliberative capacity is thus refined in order to make it more suited to investigating community groups. The following section presents the goals of the research, the methods through which they are pursued, and it explains its comparative and interpretive research design. The last part of the chapter discusses literature from deliberative democracy and social movement studies that this research builds upon in order to investigate the deliberative quality of social movement organisations.

AN INTRODUCTION TO DELIBERATIVE CAPACITY

In recent years many deliberative scholars have come to agree on the need to develop a systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In an attempt to envision more deliberative and democratic societies, the systemic turn focuses on the deliberative and democratic qualities of different activities and the way they interact (Parkinson and Mansbridge, 2012, see: Mansbridge et al., 2012). Certainly, the idea of deliberative systems is far from uncontested (e.g. Owen and Smith, 2015), and theoretical refinements are needed, as the emerging literature on this topic shows (e.g. Hendriks 2016, Boswell 2015). Nonetheless, the idea of a systemic approach to deliberative democracy embodies an interest that has characterised the field since its inception. In fact, deliberative theory has long been concerned with the possibilities of democratisation of societies at large. Indeed, early deliberative theorists such as Manin (1987: 363) stressed the importance of systematically investigating discursive processes, assessing their overall quality, and envisioning ways in which real world experiences can be drawn closer to the deliberative ideals. Generally, deliberation has been understood and investigated at micro or macro levels. That is, research has focused on deliberative assemblies or on the study of deliberation in the public at large in formal and informal settings (Hendriks, 2006). This divide has been paralleled by a tendency to neglect the empirical investigation of the deliberative qualities of social practices outside deliberative assemblies, despite their fundamental importance (Mansbridge, 1999, Young, 2000, Mansbridge et al., 2012). Overall, as pointed out by Chambers (2009, 2012), although it makes sense to distinguish between the notions of 'democratic deliberation' and 'deliberative democracy', in times of mass democracy, deliberative democratic hopes depend upon the capacity to bridge, rather than split, these two understandings of deliberation. The systemic turn acknowledges this necessity and provides a theoretical context to extend deliberative analysis to those events that are not straightforwardly deliberative in nature.

The idea of deliberative capacity (Dryzek, 2009, 2010a) can be understood within the context of this wider effort to build a systemic understanding of deliberative democracy. It can be intended also as a contribution to the oft-mentioned recommendation to connect deliberative theory and observation of societal dynamics (e.g. Neblo, 2005, Bachtiger et al., 2010). As argued by Benhabib (1996b: 10) deliberative democrats agree on the idea that in order to envision deliberative reforms of democratic systems it is necessary to 'combine the virtues of deliberative politics with a sociological realism adequate to the complexity of modern societies'. Deliberative capacity provides a means to assess the deliberative democratic qualities of contemporary societal practices without sacrificing the critical nature of the deliberative approach.

It is worth noticing that Dryzek (2009) first defined 'deliberative capacity' while discussing his own elaboration of the deliberative system, the main one referred to in this study. This system is influenced by a critical tradition built upon the Habermasian notion of the public sphere and discursive democracy, and it is composed of just two parts, 'empowered' and 'public' spaces. These are connected through 'transmission' and 'accountability' mechanisms and meta-deliberation, and each space possesses a degree of deliberative capacity (Dryzek, 2010a).

Dryzek has referred directly to the idea of deliberative capacity three times. On each occasion, he argued that deliberative capacity can be related to a deliberative system in its entirety or to parts of it, and it is articulated in three fundamental dimensions. In fact, deliberative capacity is the extent to which an overall deliberative system or its parts host authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberative processes. It is worth noticing that the idea of deliberative systems suggests an understanding of deliberation as a series of dynamic and overlapping phenomena. The notion of 'deliberative processes' or 'discursive processes' may better express this idea than just 'deliberation', which, instead, may lead us to think of formal deliberative processes only. Discursive processes, in particular, are the main concern of investigations on deliberative capacity; other elements (e.g. organisational aspects) are valuable in so far as they help understand discursive processes.

The three dimensions upon which the concept of deliberative capacity is articulated are based on certain criteria, each of which is connected to concepts and debates which have long characterised deliberative democratic thinking. The idea of 'capacity' can be intended to mean the 'capability' (of a system or parts of it) to act in a deliberative and democratic fashion. Nonetheless, when authentic and inclusive deliberative processes can be found, it does not necessarily follow that these processes are consequential in any substantial way. Thus, ultimately, the idea of capacity seems to acknowledge the possibility of a situation where an object under investigation may have a certain level of a resource (in this case, authentic and inclusive deliberative processes) without necessarily exploiting it (that is, without consequentiality).

One can study the deliberative capacity of one (or more) deliberative system(s) or focus on the deliberative capacity of various elements. In the first case it is necessary to identify a system, analyse its component parts, and express a global assessment. In the latter, instead, the elements under observation could potentially belong to a number of deliberative systems. The systemic dimension is important in understanding how the object under examination interacts with its environment, but the goal is to assess the component's deliberative and democratic qualities. This research, which focuses on community groups, prefers the second approach, which is less extensive but especially valuable in so far as its narrower scope allows for a more in-depth analysis. This is particularly true when the main goal is to explore in detail the idea of deliberative capacity, assessing its levels in specific cases, understanding its significance in different contexts, and considering what may affect its development.

The four organisations under examination are the unit of analysis. Indeed these four organisations are also the level of analysis of this study. The context in which the four organisations take action is important insofar as it helps us understand the deliberative capacity of the four Transitions, but it is not the main object of this study. In fact, this research does not aim at analysing the deliberative system of which the public sphere organisations are parts of. Thus, this work is not tied to the systemic approach to deliberative democracy. Instead, it employs theoretical developments in systemic thinking wherever these may be useful in better understanding the deliberative capacity of public space organisations.

Even when focusing on groups in the public space, as this study does, it is necessary to 'always keep our eye on whole systems' (Dryzek, 2009: 1388), and to refrain from 'assess[ing] component parts in isolation' (Dryzek, 2010a: 14). Undertaking a study that focuses on 'groups' does not imply that analysing groups is believed to be the most important means to understand deliberative dynamics. Nonetheless, group-level interaction does constitute an important stage in understanding (and finding ways to enhance) the deliberative democratic qualities of our societies (Gastil, 2010).

THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF DELIBERATIVE CAPACITY

Authenticity

'Authenticity'can be intended as a set of'criteria'(Dryzek, 2009: 1386) informed by deliberative democratic theory (and its normative goals) and its aim is to assess the deliberative qualities of communicative processes. To be sure, plenty of communications including everyday talk or simple information-sharing may fall short of deliberative ideals (Neblo, 2007: 30, Bachtiger and Hangartner, 2010: 48). Yet, assessing the deliberative democratic qualities that different processes may display (or lack), and understanding what factors may determine the observed phenomena are the core challenges for which the idea of authenticity is employed in the first place.

The criteria usually employed to assess the quality of public deliberation (Steenbergen et al., 2003, Fishkin, 2009) inform yet vary from the desiderata of authenticity (Mansbridge, 1999: 7, Bachtiger et al., 2010: 37). In fact, as already seen, the latter is meant to test (also) communications taking place outside formal deliberative assemblies. Thus there are both theoretical issues and methodological reasons why, for instance, the Discourse Quality Index (Steenbergen et al., 2003) cannot simply be employed in lieu of deliberative capacity. Nonetheless, 'authenticity' is but one way to assess the quality of deliberative processes and it is important to acknowledge that alternative frameworks can also be envisioned in literature. For instance, to Dahlberg (2005: 112) Habermas' formal pragmatics contains a list of 'normative conditions of argumentation' in communicative interaction that can be used to evaluate discursive practices. These include, 'the thematisation and reasoned critique of problematic validity claims, reflexivity, ideal role taking (combining impartiality and respectful listening), sincerity, formal inclusion, discursive equality, and autonomy from state and corporate interests'. Another example is given by Gastil (2007: 20-1) to whom deliberative conversations and discussions can be seen as analytic and social processes. From the former perspective, good deliberations create a solid information base, prioritise the key values at stake, identify a broad range of solutions, and weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs between solutions, in order to make the best decision possible. From the latter standpoint, quality deliberation occurs when participants adequately distribute speaking opportunities, ensure mutual comprehension, consider other ideas and experiences and respect other participants. Gastil (1993: 278) also envisions the conditions under which a small group can be democratic. A group should be powerful and inclusive, with a membership committed to the democratic process, maintaining healthy, democratic relationships and practices of democratic deliberation, including equal and adequate speaking opportunities, comprehension and consideration. Furthermore, Gastil identifies the different stages of democratic deliberation: agenda setting, reformulating, informing, articulating, persuading, voting, and dissenting (ibid.: 26).

The idea of authentic deliberation is illustrated on several occasions through the whole span of Dryzek's work (1990: 14-9, 2000: 68, 2005: 224, 2010a: 136-7, 2013: 13) and four criteria emerge as fundamental. In sum, authentic deliberative processes are not affected by coercion, induce reflection about the preferences that individuals hold, display claims that are systematically connected to more general principles, and exhibit 'reciprocity' - that is, an effort to communicate in ways 'that others can accept', a concept borrowed from Gutmann and Thompson (2009).

The above characterisation is central to this work, yet further consideration is in order. To begin with, a general observation is necessary: authenticity can be intended as a dynamic rather than a static property. That is, we cannot understand the authenticity of a process by simply observing whether it meets given criteria without accounting for the way processes unfold and interact in a given situation. This appears particularly important since 'deliberative capacity ... can be manifested in different ways in different systems' (Dryzek, 2009: 1380; 2010a: 136; see also 2013: 13).

In order to adapt the idea of deliberative capacity to the ends of this work it is necessary to discuss the criteria characterising the original definition of authenticity, according to which good quality discursive processes: are not affected by coercion, induce reflection, display claims that are systematically connected to general principles and exhibit reciprocity. To begin with, unlike some of the original formulations of authenticity (i.e. Dryzek, 2000: 68; 2009: 1382; 2010a: 10, 137), it is important to keep non-coercion and reflection as distinct criteria, since even when closely connected they remain two different phenomena. Moreover, coercion affects not just the quality of the deliberation in terms of its capability to induce reflection (i.e. a coercively induced reflection would not be a deliberative one) but also in its ability to, say, connect claims to more general principles, or exhibit reciprocity. Non-coercion is constructed (cf. Ball, 1978) within the framework of communicative action and communicative rationality (Habermas, 1984) in particular, and it configures a 'situation [that] should be free from deception, self-deception, strategic behaviour, and domination through the exercise of power' (Dryzek, 1990: 14). Coercion, like manipulation and deception, is the opposite of persuasion, which is a fundamental dynamic of deliberation as a social process (Dryzek 2000: 1). Moreover, to Dryzek (ibid.: 68-71) the idea of non-coercion can also be employed as a fundamental test to judge how deliberative a type of communication might be (cf. Chambers, 2009); the latter would include storytelling and testimony, greeting, rhetoric, narrative (Young, 1996: 129-30, 2000).

It is evident that the characteristics of the environment which hosts a deliberative process, the 'structural relations of dominance and subordination' (see Fraser, 1990: 65), do influence the quality of the process, especially when this is not to occur within a 'framework that secures free expression' (Cohen, 1989b: 38), which is usually in place in deliberative assemblies. Thus, non-coercion is one of those instances where we may need to revise our ways of assessing deliberation in view of the systemic turn. In fact, it is necessary to pay attention to the coercion that may come from outside a discursive process. An authentic deliberative process should not be generated through coercive means, and the coercion that may exist in the broader deliberative system should not affect the deliberative process significantly.

As to the second criterion, the term 'induce' suggests that deliberative processes should at least enable participants to reflect. Deliberation in public forums may value a more instantaneous sort of reflexive process; yet, if one thinks of deliberation as 'the engagement of discourses in the public sphere', then reflection can be intended also as a 'diffuse process, taking effect over time' (Dryzek, 2006: 57-8). As Cohen (1989a) explains, commitment to deliberation 'is likely to require ... a willingness to revise one's understanding of one's own preferences and convictions', which by no means necessarily translates into an actual preference change. As always explained by Cohen (1997: 100): 'though a deliberative view must assume that citizens are prepared to be moved by reasons ... it does not suppose that political deliberation takes as its goal the alteration of preferences'.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements by Andrea Felicetti. Copyright © 2017 Andrea Felicetti. Excerpted by permission of Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield International
• Publication date: 2018
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 1786601656
• ISBN 13: 9781786601650
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 240