Two approaches to communicative rationalityanalysing democratic deliberation and collective learning processes

  1. Marcos Engelken-Jorge 1
  1. 1 Humboldt University of Berlin
    info

    Humboldt University of Berlin

    Berlín, Alemania

    ROR https://ror.org/01hcx6992

Revue:
Revista española de ciencia política

ISSN: 1575-6548

Année de publication: 2016

Número: 41

Pages: 141-158

Type: Article

DOI: 10.21308/RECP.41.06 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

D'autres publications dans: Revista española de ciencia política

Résumé

Political theory’s deliberative turn has provided novel theoretical insights, variously interpreted, into the rationality of communication. The goal of this research note is to clarify how these theoretical arguments and concepts have informed empirical research. To this end, a number of studies in this area are examined, and the argument is made that at least two research models inform empirical research, each of which embraces different methodological perspectives and understandings of the concept of discourse. The standard, political theory approach regards discourse as a regulative ideal, with which to assess actual political communication and empirically identify cases of deliberation. Furthermore, it adopts a co-variational explanatory template. The narrative, social theory model sees discourse as a counterfactual ideal in the heads of participants in communication, and assumes a narrative methodological perspective. These two models imply different theoretical choices with different implications for empirical research.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

This paper is part of the LearningDemoi project, supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Apel, Karl-Otto. 2000. “Globalization and the Need for Universal Ethics”, European Journal of Social Theory, 3 (2): 137-155. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/13684310022224732.
  • Bächtiger, André, Markus Spörndli, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jürg Steiner. 2005. “The Deliberative Dimensions of Legislatures”, Acta Politica, 40 (2): 225-238. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500103.
  • Bächtiger, André, Simon Niemeyer, Michael Neblo, Marco R. Steenbergen and Jürg Steiner. 2010. “Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (1): 32-63. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x.
  • Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. “Democratic Iterations: The Local, the National, and the Global”, in S. Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183221.003.0003.
  • Blatter, Joachim and Till Blume. 2008. “In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence?”, Swiss Political Science Review, 14 (2): 315-356. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2008.tb00105.x.
  • Brunkhorst, Hauke. 2014. Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions: Evolutionary Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
  • Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. “The Internet and Democratic Discourse”, Information, Communication and Society, 4 (4): 615-633. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13691180110097030.
  • Dahlgren, Peter. 2005. “The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication”, Political Communication, 22 (2): 147-162. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10584600590933160.
  • Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2009. “The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case”, International Organization, 63 (1): 33-65. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002081830909002X.
  • Deitelhoff, Nicole and Harald Müller. 2005. “Theoretical paradise – empirically lost?”, Review of International Studies, 31 (1): 167-179. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S0260210505006364.
  • Delanty, Gerard. 2013. “The prospects of cosmopolitanism and the possibility of global justice”, Journal of Sociology, 50 (2): 213-228. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1440783313508478.
  • Della Porta, Donatella. 2010. “How many approaches in the social sciences?”, in D. della Porta and M. Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Eder, Klaus. 1991. Geschichte als Lernprozeß? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernität in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  • Eder, Klaus. 1995. “Rationality in Environmental Discourse: A Cultural Approach to Environmental Policy Analysis”, in W. Rudig (ed.), Green Politics Three. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Eder, Klaus. 1996. The Social Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment. London: Sage.
  • Eder, Klaus. 2007. “Cognitive Sociology and the Theory of Communicative Action”, European Journal of Social Theory, 10 (3): 389-408. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1368431007080702.
  • Eder, Klaus. 2007b. “The public sphere and European democracy: mechanisms of democratisation in the transnational situation”, in J.E. Fossum and P. Schlesinger (eds.), The European Union and the Public Sphere: A Communicative Space in the Making? London: Routledge.
  • Eder, Klaus. 2014. “The Paradox of Political Participation”, PArtecipazione e COnflitto: The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies, 7 (3): 551-575.
  • Fishkin, James. 2005. “Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion”, Acta Politica, 40 (3): 284-298. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121.
  • Fishkin, James 2012. “Deliberative Polling: Reflections on an Ideal Made Practical”, in B. Geissel and K. Newton (eds.), Evaluating Democratic Innovations. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Fœssel, Michaël and Jürgen Habermas. 2015. “Critique and Communication: A Conversation with Jürgen Habermas”, Eurozine. Available at: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2015-10-16-habermas-en.html [Retrieved: 6 November 2015].
  • Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. London: Profile Books.
  • Ganuza, Ernesto, Francisco Francés, Regina Lafuente and Fernando Garrido. 2012. “Do Participants Change Their Preferences in the Deliberative Process?”, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 139: 111-132.
  • Gaus, Daniel. 2013. “Rationale Rekonstruktion als Methode politischer Theorie zwischen Gesellschaftskritik und empirischer Politikwissenschaft“, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 54 (2): 231-255. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/00323470-2013-2-231.
  • Gerhards, Jürgen, Friedhelm Neidhardt and Dieter Rucht. 1998. Zwischen Palaver und Diskurs: Strukturen Öffentlicher Meinungbildung am Beispiel der Deutschen Diskussion zur Abtreibung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12466-5.
  • Goodin, Robert E. 2005. “Sequencing Deliberative Moments”, Acta Politica, 40 (2): 182-196. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500098.
  • Grönlund, Kimmo, Maija Setälä and Kaisa Herne. 2010. “Deliberation and civic virtue”, European Political Science Review, 2 (1): 95-117. Available at: http://dx. doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909990245.
  • Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/9781400826339.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, vol. I. Madrid: Taurus, 2003.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1999. Truth and Justification. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. “Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, Acta Politica, 40 (3): 384-392. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500119.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2005b. Between Naturalism and Religion. Cambridge: Polity, 2008.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension?”, Communication Theory, 16 (4): 411426. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x.
  • Lafont, Cristina. 2006. “Is the Ideal of a Deliberative Democracy Coherent?”, in S. Besson and J.L. Martí (eds.), Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Landwehr, Claudia and Katharina Holzinger. 2010. “Institutional determinants of deliberative interaction”, European Political Science Review, 2 (3): 373-400. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000226.
  • Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System”, in S. Macedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mansbridge, Jane, et al. 2010. “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (1): 64-100. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x.
  • Miller, Max. 2006. Dissens: Zur Theorie diskursiven und systemischen Lernens. Bielefeld: Transcript. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/9783839404843.
  • Niemeyer, Simon. 2011. “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation”, Politics and Society, 39 (1): 103-140. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329210395000.
  • O’Flynn, Ian and Nicole Curato. 2015. “Deliberative democratization: a framework for systemic analysis”, Policy Studies, 36 (3): 298-313. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1065965.
  • Parkinson, John and Jane Mansbridge (eds.). 2012. Deliberative Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139178914.
  • Peters, Bernhard. 2007. Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  • Pilon, Dennis. 2009. “Investigating Media as a Deliberative Space”, Canadian Political Science Review, 3 (3): 1-23.
  • Risse, Thomas. 2000. “‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics”, International Organization, 54 (1): 1-39. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1162/002081800551109.
  • Rohlinger, Deana A. 2007. “American Media and Deliberative Democratic Processes”, Sociological Theory, 25 (2): 122-148. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9558.2007.00301.x.
  • Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511609848.
  • Smith, Graham and Corinne Wales. 2000. “Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy”, Political Studies, 48 (1): 51-65. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/14679248.00250.
  • Somers, Margaret R. 1994. “The Narrative Constitution of Identity”, Theory and Society, 23 (5): 605-649. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992905
  • Somers, Margaret R. 1998. “’We’re No Angels’: Realism, Rational Choice, and Relationality in Social Science”, American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3): 722-784. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210085.
  • Statham, Paul and Hans-Jörg Trenz. 2015. “Understanding the mechanisms of EU politicization”, Comparative European Politics, 13: 287-306. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.30.
  • Steenbergen, Marco R, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli and Jürg Steiner. 2003. “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index”, Comparative European Politics, 1 (1): 21-48. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave. cep.6110002.
  • Steiner, Jürg. 2008. “Concept Stretching: The Case of Deliberation”, European Political Science, 7 (2): 186-190. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave. eps.2210186.
  • Steiner, Jürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057486.
  • Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Crossnational Study of Parliamentary Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Strydom, Piet. 2000. Discourse and Knowledge: The Making of Enlightenment Sociology. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5949/ UPO9781846312960.
  • Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Klaus Eder. 2004. “The Democratizing Dynamics of a European Public Sphere”, European Journal of Social Theory, 7 (1): 5-25. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368431004040016.
  • Tsaliki, Liza. 2002. “Online Forums and the Enlargement of Public Space”, The Public, 9 (2): 95-112.
  • Walsh, Katherine C. 2004. Talking about Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Wessler, Hartmut. 2008. “Investigating Deliberativeness Comparatively”, Political Communication, 25 (1): 1-22. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807752.
  • Wessler, Hartmut and Eike Mark Rinke. 2014. “Deliberative Performance of Television News in Three Types of Democracy”, Journal of Communication, 64 (5): 827-851. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12115.
La source de données: Dialnet