Against Deliberation - Lynn Sanders

Against Deliberation Author(s): Lynn M. Sanders Source: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jun., 1997), pp.
347-376 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191984 . Accessed: 07/03/2014 05:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:41:48 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AGAINSTDELIBERATION
LYNNM. SANDERS University of Chicago
seemsirrational.' A commitment deliberation opposing ADMITTEDLY,

to deliberation is, after all, a commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements,and overcome conflicts by offering arguments supportedby reasons to our fellow citizens. Deliberativedemocracy promises legitimate-that is, morallyjustifiable and rationallyproducedsolutions to vexing political problems.Especially when these problemsare difficult, affording no clear way to arrive at unequivocally satisfactory recommendsitself becauseit relies on a broadconsidsolutions,deliberation erationof alternative solutions,increasingthe likelihoodthattheperspectives held by all membersof a heterogeneouscommunitywill be given voice. And deliberationis also clarifyingandenlightening,highlightingthe moralissues at stake in politicaldebatesandallowing citizens to elucidatethese issues for themselves. Arguments on behalf of deliberationcontinue to proliferate, and this of deliberation reinforcesthe suppositionthat steady streamof endorsements deliberationenhances democracy.Democratictheoristsnow take deliberation to be the exemplarypracticeor activityfor democrats, andthey geartheir argumentstowardits realization.Hence deliberationhas become a standard for the accomplishment of democracy: it is whatdemocratictheoristsaim for, our ideal and our aspiration. When democratictheoristssuggest remodeling ourpolitics, it is in the directionof makingthemmoredeliberative(Gutmann and Thompson 1996). What,then,could be wrongwith deliberation? To begin, one mightsimply be suspiciousof the nearconsensusamongdemocratic theoristson its behalf. It isn't clear,afterall, thatthis wide endorsement has itself emergedthrough a genuinelydeliberativeprocess:democratictheoristsarea select groupwho cannotand do not claim in any way to represent the perspectivesof ordinary
POLMTICAL Vol.25 No. 3, June1997 347-376 THEORY, 0 1997SagePublications, Inc. 347
348
POLMCAL THEORY/ June 1997
citizensconstitute the demos on whosebehalf citizens.Although ordinary deliberation aremade,therecommendation about of deliberation arguments is not,typically, notsubstantive orempirijustified by arguments, especially is whatordinary cal ones,thatdeliberative citizenswouldthemdemocracy selvesrecommend.2 The absenceof this (deliberative) forrecommending delibjustification eration doesnotby itselfmakedeliberation antidemocratic. Butit obviously of the possibilities does, I think, justifyan exploration for arguing against So thatis my enterprise deliberation. to articulate here. I attempt some reasonswhydeliberation to ordinary mightnotappeal citizens,orat least not to manyresidentsof the UnitedStates,at least not given the way we I suggestthattheseobservations live now.And,correspondingly, provide shouldnot necessarily some reasonswhy deliberation and automatically either. to democratic appeal theorists,
THETROUBLE WITH DELIBERATION
The deliberative ideal might troubleproponents of democracy for a of reasons. Forone thing,it carries number conservative or antidemocratic connotations usuallyoverlooked by well-intentioned theorists. Appealsto I will argue,have often been fraught deliberation, with connotations of rationality, reserve,cautiousness, quietude, community, selflessness,and connotations whichin factprobably universalism, undermine deliberation's democratic claims.Moreseriously thanthis,however, is thatappealing to or taking it forgranted as an appropriate deliberation, democratic standard, effect. mayhavea destructive Democratic theorists havearticulated, in formal theprerequisites terms, of deliberation; they have sketchedwhat conditionswould have to be achieved fordeliberation to proceed. Foremost among theseconditions is the of mutual achievement citizenswho deliberate respect: mustaddress each otheras equalsandacknowledge thisstatus by offering reasonable, morally to eachother. justifiable The(careful) arguments articulation of theseformal is a far cry froman assessment standards, however, of the probability of them.Intheabsence of suchanassessment, meeting appeals to deliberation do nothing to challenge anundesirable status quo. Most perniciously, even thoughthe requirement of mutualrespectis notinvestigated, another assumed, expectation associated withdeliberation is probably realizedin ourpoliticalculture. Somecitizensarebetterthan othersat articulating theirarguments in rational, reasonable terms.Some
Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 349
tobedeliberating, linkbetween thetight citizens, then, appear already and, given anddeliberation, to be acting democracy appear already democratically.
If we assume that deliberationcannotproceed without the realizationof mutual respect, and deliberationappearsto be proceeding, we may even
havebeenachieved of mutual decidethatconditions mistakenly respect by deliberators. Inthisway,taking deliberation asa signal of democratic practice works onseemingly democratic paradoxically undemocratically, discrediting theirarguments in grounds the viewsof thosewhoareless likelyto present deliberative. In our political ways thatwe recognizeas characteristically culture, thesecitizens arelikelytobethosewhoarealready underrepresented institutions andwhoaresystematically disadin formal political materially racialminorities, vantaged, namelywomen; especially Blacks;andpoorer people. historical connotations on My initialclaimaboutdeliberation's depends thinkers haveappealed a reviewof how andwhypolitical to it. Thisreview has at least a few suspiciousantidemocratic will show thatdeliberation and second associations. deliberation's My larger claim,concerning potenon to factsabout tiallycounterproductive effects, depends attention particular whenAmerican whathappens citizensactually to deliberate. get together Althoughthese facts are perhaps disheartening, lookingat whatactually in democratic andnoticing whentheyseemto go best, happens discussions, alsosuggestswaysto improve democratic discussion in theUnitedStates. in American The facts aboutdeliberation settings,at least as I have whenAmerican gathered them,showthatwhathappens citizens talkto each otheris oftenneither norreallydemocratic. trulydeliberative Thisis partly, thematerial butnotonly,because fordeliberation prerequisites areunequally distributed. Itis partly, butnotonly,because someAmericans aremorelikely to be persuasive thanothers, thatis, to be learned andpracticed in making thatwouldberecognized asreasonable arguments ones-no matter byothers or truetheirpresentations how worthy actually are.It is also because some Americans areapparently less likelythanothers to be listened to;evenwhen theirarguments arestated to conventions according of reason, theyaremore
likely to be disregarded. Althoughdeliberators will always choose to disregard some arguments,when this disregardis systematicallyassociatedwith the argumentsmade by those we know alreadyto be systematicallydisadvantaged,we should at least reevaluateour assumptionsaboutdeliberation's democraticpotential.Deliberation requiresnot only equalityin resourcesand the guarantee of equalopportunity to articulate persuasivearguments butalso in the capacity to evoke acknowlequality in "epistemologicalauthority," edgement of one's arguments.
350
/ June1997 THEORY POLMCAL
noteasilyaddressed Theseareinsidious within theconfines problems, of which ontheaccomplishment about arguments deliberation, depend crucially citizensof mutual by democratic respectfor each other,but are bereftof of whether thisis a realistic evaluations Because theachievement possibility. of mutualrespectis practically theoristsshouldask remote,democratic whether on behalfof deliberation do anything to bringabout the arguments of trulydemocratic, or indeedtrulydeliberative, achievement discussions. discussionotherthandeliberation Perhaps a modelof democratic would to theseinsidious I attend moredirectly So conclude this problems. essayby forthetimebeing,andtryto imagine thatwe forgetdeliberation suggesting a model for democratic mutual politics that more plausiblyencourages thatadvocates of deliberation, afterall,reallywant. respect-something
THELASTING MARRIAGE OF DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY
theorists Democratic arguethatdeliberation cultivates for democracy, has a badside:its conservative goodreason.Deliberation its connotations, in American unfortunate manifestations Yetdemocratic practice. theorists believethatdeliberation makesdemocracy withtwo distinct pregnant but related increased andanexpanded offspring: senseof community. autonomy Tocontemporary theorists, enhancing autonomy means, inpart, educating citizens to consider policyandbroader political questions rather thanleaving these thingsup to a specialized, informed elite. Democratic technically theoristswant deliberation for everyone,not for some particular representatives. of democracy, Theyopposepluralist conceptions especiallyits because interest-group variants, no premium they"place onpolitical participation" (Sunstein 1988,1546). of democratic So advocates deliberation wantto involveordinary citizens in the processof rational thatpluralists decision-making leaveto experts.3 Sometimes deliberation is recommended for its educational effects,for its to makecitizenssmarter, promise alongthelinesof Mill'ssuggestion in On Forexample, Bernard Liberty. Maninsays that"political deliberation and ... constitute argumentation of education processes andtraining.... they themselves" spread light.... thepeopleeducate (1987,354).Thistraining is not a simplematter of intellectual improvement: "Only publicdeliberation andpolitical action allowcitizens torealize-bothtomake realandtobecome aware of-their dignity andpowers asresponsible and agents judges" (Pitkin andShumer atleastin its mostpromising 1982,44). Deliberation, formula-
citizens to seethings tions,teaches theyhadpreviously overlooked, including andtherefore to becomebetter citizens.Thisis clearly the views of others, thekindof thingAckerman hopesforwhenhe suggests thatbaseprejudices like hatred of racism will be transformed, andworthy intuitions vindicated, anddialogue criticism rational through (1980,353). is a civicorpolitical, notindividualistic, andit is quite Autonomy project, alsoadvocating forits potentheorists deliberation usualto finddemocratic seemsdirectly tial to uncovera communal identity. Again,this tendency to interest-group liberalism. linkedto the questfor an alternative So, for issueof the now-defunct example,Sheldon Wolin,in the founding journal thatthestateof affairs atthedawnof theeighties announced had democracy, crisis of a need to out "who we as on a are a brought identity, figure people" andRogers, whose1983bookOnDemocracy (Wolin1981,10).AndCohen aredark foundthatin themidstof a lot of whatmight began"These times," be calledpoliticking wasa totalabsence of democratic community:
of actionabound.Think Debatesandprograms Attemptsat coalition-building proliferate. tanks and policy research institutes steadily multiply. New corporatepolitical action committees and privatenewslettersare borneach day.... But if those who occupy the commandingheightsof privatepoweraremobilizingtheirforces, thosewho live beneath them are in startlingdisarray... there is no common voice (Cohen and Rogers 1983, 16-17).
of a common voiceis specifically Thepursuit posedhereas a remedy to the of private accumulation powerandspecialinterests. deliberation So initsbestortruest is a process of political discussion form, thatexcludesno one. It improves all citizensintellectually, by heightening their toconsider ability policyandpolitical problems; personally, byallowing forobservation themto realizetheiruntapped andjudgment; capacities and or civically, themaboutthepolitical morally by teaching concerns of other citizens andbyencouraging mutual Modern respect. advocates of democratic aim to develop communal deliberation sensibilitieswithoutrequiring a education in civic virtue.They aspireto replacea potentially oppressive facelessandpossiblycorrupt technocratic elite withinformed, considerate andjust,reasoning andreason-giving citizens.
REASONS FORA DIVORCE
Evenon this truest, bestversion,deliberation still provides no solution thehardest for,andpossiblyexacerbates, problem fordemocrats, andthere-
352
POLMCAL June1997 THEORY/
foremissesby its own standards. American democratic theorists who want to discourage elitism,expandcitizenparticipation, the abilityof improve andevaluate citizensto discusspolicyquestions, and politicalcandidates, beforeall this, heightencitizenrespectfor each other,need to take one is howmoreof thepeoplewhoroutinely problem as primary. Thisproblem speakless-who, through variousmechanisms or accidents of birthand in andmostalienated areleastexpressive fortune, fromconventional American politics-might takepartand be heardandhow those who typically to theviewsof others. dominate mightbe madeto attend democratic theorists Contemporary of theseriousare,to be sure,aware ness of this problem of disenfranchisement. So, for example,whenCass makesthe case thatthe bestthingaboutrepublican Sunstein is its thought commitment to deliberative he hastens to pointout what'sbad democracy, aboutit: deliberation, he says,cannotneatlybe separated fromrepublican practices of exclusion of women,Blacks,andthoselacking property (Sunstein 1988,1539).Bernard Manin thatdeliberation is worth argues praising becausea trulydeliberative process issuingin legitimate decisions political theparticipation of "all" utterly requires (1987,esp. 352, 359). Knight and Johnson the importance carefully emphasize of "freeandequalaccess to deliberative arenas" recent (1994).Fishkin's torevitalize American proposal a "deliberative democracy through opinion poll"makes equalconsideration of everyone's anessential preferences todemocracy precondition (1991,30). some democratic Further, theorists not only mention the importance of formalequalization of access but also advocatestructural or economic reformsto guarantee that all citizenshave the resources-time,money, skill at arguing-required for deliberation. education, Forinstance, Cohen and Rogers(1983) notice that "theabsenceof material deprivation is a precondition for free and unconstrained deliberation" (p. 157) and that "material cansubvert a structure inequalities of freeandequalpublicdeliberationby translating into sharply unequal capacities for politicalaction" (p. 158). They urgethe elimination of gross material inequities and also freepubliceducation recommend andstate-financed childcare.Education ensuresthe development of deliberative andchildcareon this capacities, viewguarantees that women canparticipate inpolitics after theyhavelearned howtodeliberate bygoingtoschool. Johnson andKnight havesystematically addressed theseproblems andattempted to specifythe (formal, notinstituof the remediesto inequitythatmustprecededeliberation tional)nature (1996). Theseacknowledgements of theprerequisites to deliberation, andthese to instill deliberation witha participatory attempts andinclusive impulse, are far fromtrivial.Theyin factmustbe madeif deliberation is to qualifyas
Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION353
democratic. Yettheydo not, I think,fully address of exclusion, problems between the hardest that becausethereis too greata disjuncture problems withandtheformality mustgrapple of theacknowdemocracy's proponents thatdemocratic andrecommendations theorists make. ledgments of this disjuncture in the Some criticshave noticedthe manifestation theorists. talkof democratic thisabstraction abstract Indeed, maybe absolutely of deliberative becauseacknownecessaryfor proponents democracy, of thehardest thatis, thesystematic of ascripledgment problems, disregard andBlacks, would suchaswomen violate thedeliberative tivelydefined groups rather to theforceof argument thantheinterests of particular tenetto attend democratic citizensas described in groups(Phillips1995, 155ff.). Indeed, in the case of thesetheories seemto live on another planet(quiteliterally, Ackerman 1980):they are devoidof race,class, and genderand all the associated withthesefeatures. benefits andliabilities AbstracbyAmericans characteristics-their tion fromthese ascriptive assists disregard-clearly to enddiscrimination baseduponthem;as well,however, attempts abstractheorists of a wayto noticesystematic tiondeprives of exclusion. patterns moredifficult A deeper, thanabstraction lurks.Evenif demoproblem noticetheinequities theorists associated withclassandraceandgender cratic recommend incomeandeducation to redistriband,forexample, equalizing neededfor deliberation-even ute theresources if everyone candeliberate andlearnhow to give reasons-some people'sideasmaystill countmore Insidious thanothers. citizens to hear somearguments prejudices mayincline this prejudice and not others.Importantly, may be unrecognized by those as well as by other citizenswhoseviewsaredisregarded citizens. of deliberation areespecially Proponents to address badlyequipped this on openarguments problem. Theydepend against prejudice to overcome it, of prejudice andon thesusceptibility to reason. Not onlydo theybelievein of settings theexistence where matters nothing exceptforanidea'sintellectualforceandits communal as in Habermas's idealspeechsituation utility, (Habermas [1962] 1992;Calhoun 1992)or in Ackerman's insistence thata cannever beinvoked asareason speaker's toprefer anidea(1980, superiority to be challenged in deliberative 4, 11);theyalso expectprejudices settings andfor othersto "faceup"to them(Gutmann andThompson 1996).When based inprejudice disregard goesunrecognized byboththosewhoaresubject to it andthosewhoareprejudiced, cannot prejudices possibly be challenged. and privilegedo not emergein deliberative Prejudice settingsas bad andtheyarenotcountered reasons, by goodarguments. Theyaretoosneaky, for thatreasonable invisible,and pernicious process.So worrying about specifyingwhatcountsas a good argument, or tryingto enhance reasonof betterrules and procedures giving either via the formulation or by
354
/ June1997 POLITICAL THEORY
to become andeducation a responsible thetime,money, providing necessary to deliberative citizen,doesnotengagesomeof themostserious challenges the possibility of achieving democratic deliberation. Somepeoplemightbe howskillfully no matter howgoodtheirreasons ignored are,no matter they democratic doesn'thavean articulate them,andwhenthis happens, theory because onecannot counter a pernicious witha good answer, group dynamic isn'tanything like the rightproject and reason.Sometimes, givingreasons or discrimination is thatthe disregarded suggesting argue against prejudice offensivein andof itself.4
THEANTIDEMOCRATIC APPEALOF DELIBERATION
he is a somewhat Although predictable target, Joseph Schumpeter neatly exemplifiesthreeof the time-honored These chargesagainstdemocracy. whichpersistin different charges, degreesto the present day,arethatthe to get outof control massesarebound whentheyget together, thattheyare andthattheycannot of rational see beyond their incapable argument, narrow selfishconcerns. invoked For the first,Schumpeter the observations of Le Bon, who, on succeeded in showing Schumpeter's reading,
therealities of human behavior when under theinfluence of agglomeration-in particular inastate thesudden ofexcitement, ofmoral restraints disappearance, andcivilized modes of thinking andfeeling,the sudden of primitive eruption infantilisms impulses, and criminal made usfacegruesome factsthat propensities-he knew everybody butnobody wishedto see andhe thereby dealta serious blowto thepicture of man's nature which underlies theclassical doctrine of democracy anddemocratic about folkdore revolutions. (Schumpeter [1942]1976,257)
when set loose in public-not Lowly passions,citizens'lack of restraint so or as a desire for anything lofty principled for example-are autonomy, the truesourcesof inspiration for the greatdemocratic revolutions. Public assembly seems,onSchumpeter's forextracting view,arecipe onlythebasest of whichhumans arecapable. performances In addition, to Schumpeter, according mostcitizensaren't thatsmart. For "mere theaverage oftenrepeated, counts citizen, more than assertion, rational hadno shortage of catch-phrases argument." Schumpeter forconveying his lackof esteemfortheintelligence of themany. general Theaverage citizen of long or complicated "is impatient argument," possesses"weakrational
is "not'all there.'" "People," processes," "cannot Schumpeter announces, Since average humans be carried are likely to yield more up the ladder." and manipulation thanto rational readilyto prejudice not to argument, to crudeexcess thatis riskedwhenthey assemble, mentionthe invitation thatthetypicalcitizen"drops downto a lowerlevel concludes Schumpeter as soonas he enters thepolitical field.He argues and of mental performance in a waywhichhe wouldreadily as infantile withinthe analyzes recognize He becomesa primitive sphereof his real interests. again"(Schumpeter [1942] 1976,257, 262). alsowasconvinced that citizens couldbarely Finally, Schumpeter average If politicalmatters resembled the concerns of discerna commoninterest. there dailylife in thehomeor in business, mightbe somehopeforminimal of civic affairs-so localpoliticsmightbe less afflicted comprehension by of theaverage citizen. ButSchumpeter theignorance allowsthat"even there we finda reduced to act powerof discerning facts,a reduced preparedness senseof responsibility." Andwhenit comesto national a reduced uponthem, thereis no basisforhoping andinternational thatcitizensmightsee affairs, anythinglike a commongood, becausethese affairs"lacka directand
unmistakablelink with .
.
. private concerns."Citizens aren't capable of
one thatimmediately apprehending anyinterest beyond andobviously concernsthemselves (Schumpeter [1942]1976,260, 261). It is quitecommon to putSchumpeter's aboutdemocracy complaints in perspective by recallingthe contextin whichhe wrote,with its specific historical Forinstance, provocations. DavidHeld,in making thepointthat washardly anoriginal Schumpeter thinker, remarks that
account of moreparticipatory schemes Schumpeter's highlycritical of democracy ... echoedcloselytheopinions of many Western commentators andpoliticians atthetime who felt "excessive" the mobilization participation mightproduce of the demoswith highlydangerous theexperiences consequences: among uppennost in theirminds was nodoubt theBolshevik revolution andthemassrallies which theadvent signaled of Nazi Germany. (Held1987,165)
Creditfor sensitivity to the historical lessonsof massexcess is frequently extendedto the American politicalscientistswho followedand in some measure echoedSchumpeter, suchas theauthors of Voting(Berelson, Lazarfeld,andMcPhee1954)andRobert Dahl(1956). Yetthe antidemocratic sentiments thatSchumpeter exemplifies areboth andtoo persistent too old-fashioned to be linkeddirectly to the historyof twentieth viewsof themassesweresolidlyin century Europe. Schumpeter's placein SirPhilipSidney's Arcadia, thebestsellingbook,after theBible,in
356
THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL
seventeenth centuryEngland(Herzog1989). Sidney sketchesa zealous of manipulatof anyconstant bothatthemercy multitude incapable opinion, andin needof skillfulleadership. There's no hopeof a discussion ive rulers of common interests in Sidney's account of democratic assembly:
But when they began to talk of theirgriefs, neverbees made such a confused humming: the town dwellers demandingputtingdown of imposts;the countryfellows, laying out of commons: some would have the princekeep his courtin one place, some in another. All cried out to have new counselors,but when they shouldthinkof any new, they liked At length they fell to direct them as well as any other that they could remember.... contrarieties. (Sidney 1984, 383)
followedAmerican Not only predating him, views like Schumpeter's for instance, in Almondand politicalscienceinto the sixties,appearing, forideas TheCivicCulture Converse's Verba's (1963).Similarly, Philip quest theAmerican masspublic, himthrough revisions andrefineamong leading concluded withthelament mentsof survey that"what needs instrumentation, is notthe[survey] itembutthepopulation" repair (1963,176).Theviewsthat in 1942werehardly was Schumpeter Schumpeter published novel;neither theendof them. I wantto suggestthattheappeal to deliberation hasoffered of something an all-purpose solution to eachof the problems named and by Schumpeter thissolution is satisfying others. toboth elitists anddemocrats. Paradoxically, of itsconnotations of cautiousness Because andorder-because deliberation is by definition nothasty-it establishes a standard to invokein complaints or excessivebehavior. aboutunruly Deliberation also connotes thoughtfulness. Appealsto deliberation amountto demands for a certainkind of discoursein democratic politicalsettings: reasonable, foresighted, steady, to a common, andoriented notsectarian, problem. The aristocratic use of these standards (or antidemocratic) has beento claim that the manyfail to be deliberate: thatis, they are too hasty,or insufficiently thoughtful, aboutproblems especially not of immediate concernto them.Butdemocrats also subscribe to them:manydemocrats have triedto meet the aristocratic to democracy objections by adopting these asstandards forhowdemocratic objections discussions political should range or be restricted. So democrats endup sayingthatthemanyshould be involved in politics butthattheyshoulddeliberate aboutit. Bothdefenders andenemiesof the masseshave advanced deliberation as the perfectantidote to democracy. staunch do notcelebrate Democracy's supporters it as a placeforthemany to gather andexpressintemperate views:instead, eagerto offsetcriticisms of democracy as short-sighted andineptmobrule,theysuggesthow it can
andcommunally be mademore oriented. Inthefollowrational, slow-paced, betweenapparently ing sections,I explorethe resonance conservative and discussions of deliberation. democratic apparently
ANDTHEAVOIDANCE DELUBERATION ANDINEPTITUDE OFINTEMPERANCE wasa vociferous Burke advocate of a moretranquil Edmund politicsand the author of some of the morecolorfulimagesof popular excess in the Burkefoundthe FrenchNationalAssembly historyof politicalthought. in it a sham,playing anything butdeliberate; fact,he considered
withas littledecency thefarceof deliberation as liberty. of Theyactlikethecomedians a riotous a fairbefore thetumultuous criesof a mixedmobof audience; theyactamidst ferocious to theirinsolent men,andof womenlost to shame, who,according fancies, andsometimes mixandtaketheir direct, control, applaud, explode them, seatsamongst them,domineering overthemwitha strange mixture of servilepetulance andproud, presumptuous (Burke [1790]1987,60) authority.
AlthoughBurkewas hardlya democrat's best friend,he didn'tfind the multitude without if it entirely redemption: couldjust slow down,it might notbe completely 'The multitude, outlandish. for the moment, is foolish," he said,butonly for the moment, "when deliberation" theyactwithout (as inPitkin1967,181).Unfortunately, quoted headmitted however, though that withdeliberative theywereendowed Burke considered thedelibcapacities, erate senseof themultitude tooremote andtoolongincoming tomake it safe forthem todirect their ownpolitics. Better that theyavoidtheoverstimulating of the politicalassemblyand leave politicsto someoneless atmosphere inclined to rashness. Burke is, of course, theexemplary conservative. Butself-styled democrats alsosketch democratic excessin language thatcloselyapproximates his.The American scientist Donald political Downs,forexample, echoesBurke inhis account of thepolitical extremism surrounding attempts by radical feminists to passantipornography in Minneapolis andIndianapolis. legislation Downs reportsthat "manyknowledgeable leadersexpressedstrongreservations aboutthe lack of deliberation, the one-sidedness, andthe surreal sense of moralemergency thatprevailed" in Minneapolis. Indescribing thehearings onpornography heldby theCityCouncil, Downs,bothin hisownwords and in quoting others, refers to the"antics" of supporters of theantipornography their ordinance, their "emotionalism," "rant andrave" as opposed to "precise
358
THEORY/ June1997 POLITICAL
and the way the activists"applauded, their"hysteria," thinking," booed, Andin fact,Downssaysthata senseof moral hissed,andcried." emergency thequalities are"precisely thatthepolitically mature andone-sidedness and to tame" tolerant societyaspires (Downs1989,66, 82-3,86-7,italicsadded). thepointhereis notabout theextent to whichDonald Tobe clear, Downs onpornography. it is thatbothDownsandothers decries restrictions Instead, condemn theantipornography whoseviewshereports activists that bysaying deliberate. Andthough Downs theywere,in no smallmeasure, insufficiently in thenameof democracy thiscondemnation (1989)makes he (forexample, taken on pornog... thenewattack saysthat"theextreme positions during thequality havedemeaned of public discourse raphy ... andjeopardized the debate" qualityof democratic to deliberation (p. xvii), his appeals clearly withBurke's conservative on the needfor containment resonate emphasis of excess. andtheavoidance distrust of the self-control andreasonableness of the many Unqualified democratic may seem out of placein ourrelatively age, buta judiciously is notatall foreign to modern Worries expressed skepticism policythinkers. between deliberation aboutthe contradiction anddemocracy, aboutpublic discussionsspinninginto chaos, are regarded as legitimate concernsfor Thetaskof thesebureaucrats hasbecome,on themodern policymanagers. American of publicpolicyandpublicissues view,notjust themanagement of thepublicdiscussion perse, butthemanagement itself. For instance, morethana thirdof the essays in a collectioneditedby RobertReich, The Power of PublicIdeas, are explicitlydevotedto the questionof how policy makersmightdeveloppublicdebateon policy Butit's clearthatthisis tricky matters. evenforthosestudents business, of likeReich, whoclearly public policy, endorse thegoalof democratic involvement.A certain wariness all of Reich'srecommendations accompanies that public managers under bring policymatters thepublic purview. Reichwarns: will takeupinordinate deliberation "public timeandresources ... andit can easilycycleoutof control" (Reich1988,154).Evenwell-intentioned public needto knowjusthowmessythingscanbecome. managers with the objection thatthe massesareinclinedto be Closelyaffiliated overwhelmed in thepolitical by mobpsychology is theworry assembly that rational to think theyaren't Thistoois anold-fashioned sufficiently straight. Forexample, in theseventeenth objection. SirThomas century, PopeBlount announced that "thenumerous rabble" were "butbrutesin theirunderbuttheiroutsides standing.. . having nothing tojustifytheirtitlesto rationin ality"(asquoted Thomas 1983,43-4).Buttheviewhasnotentirely faded fromthescene.Notso longago,Charles Lindblom wasnearly asunflattering
to bedemocratic. as SirThomas: "most peoplewant policymaking generally Buttheyalsowantit to be intelligent" (Lindblom 1980,6). shouldbe restricted to experts-to thoseparThe ideathatdeliberation with the skills for rational discourse-is an idea that ticularlyequipped thatat leastformally to be demoothermodemtheories pervades purport theirtrueinterests canbestbe pursued cratic.If the massesarelacking, by at managing someonebetterequipped politicalaffairsthanthey are. The
second chapterof C. B. MacPherson'sThe Real Worldof Democracy is a
to justifythe ideathatthe "vanguard long attempt state. . . maybe called if the massesthemselves democratic": exhibitno tastefor the struggle for then an elite groupmay directthem to it, pursuing humanequality, the better thantheythemselves can (MacPherson people'strueinterests 1965, 22). to ruleby experts An alternative available to democrats. If is, however, And it may be exactly the massesare lacking,they mightbe improved. in publicaffairsthatwill educatethemto the capacities involvement for Themostfamousexemplar of theeducative effectsof political citizenship. is Mill.Although he wassuspicious deliberation of average citizens enough Government to suggestin Representative thattheirvotes shouldbe outweighedby theirbetter-educated fellows,Mill still locatedsome uplifting in political in OnLiberty. forinstance potential discourse, in a number of ways through Averagepeoplecan be improved their in politics.Not only mighttheydevelopbasiccompetency involvement at citizenship, they also arelikelyto becomebetter human beings,acquiring both individual and a sense of commoninvolvement. autonomy Many democrats extend thishopeto allcitizens: contemporary theywanteveryone involvedin politics,buttheyalsowanteveryone to be deliberate about it.
DELIBERATION FOR EVERYONE
Modemdemocratic theorists wantpublicdeliberation to be commonin two ways.Theyhopethatall citizenswill deliberate together, because their of participating in a discussion of common activity problems should inspire a senseof autonomy. to antidemocrats, And,incontrast likeSirPhillip Sidney andJosephSchumpeter, whodoubttheaverage citizen'sabilityto comprebuta private hendanything modem interest, democratic theorists believethis broader orientation can be reached by the massesand recommend wide in political involvement deliberation as a course to it. Public discussions are common formodem democratic in a secondsense,then,in terms theorists of
360
/ June1997 THEORY POLITICAL
A normof findinga common or orientation. voice, of theirsubjectmatter some form of a communal contemporary interest,pervades resurrecting democratic theory. seems of a common interest oridentity in thepursuit Including everyone andit contains the onexpanded it'sa goalfounded democratic: participation, worthwhile-asenseof empowerment anda stake thatsomething aspiration Yetthisdemocratic in the community-willcomeoutof thisparticipation. Boththepursuit of a comantidemocratic certain aimcarries implications. foreveryone-usedin thatpursuit monvoiceandthevehicle-deliberation to important democratic aims.There are antagonistic maybe fundamentally towhich candeliberate limitstotheextent which together, everyone probably of a common voice itselfis, somewhat I will discusslater.But the pursuit anexclusiveaim.Although modern democratic theorists did paradoxically, because themasses notdecideto focuson a communal identity theythought narrow andselfishconcerns, in the to see beyond their needed special urging indictments of mass with conservative end this focus ends up resonating troubling ways. politicsin potentially defines shealsoreveals thecontemWhenJane deliberation, Mansbridge porary democratic inclination toward the pursuit of commonality. that Mansbridge, however,is carefulto allow for a formof deliberation of difference: deliberation thearticulation thecharacadvocates may"shape of morehabitually terof thosewhoengagein it, in thedirection recognizing If patterns of oppression makeit unlikelythatsome conflictsof interest." inarticulating willsucceed thesedifferences, from theyneedtoretreat groups discussion anddeliberate to discover the moregeneral amongthemselves, is the goal: "the their true interests.Ultimately, however,commonality 'we'rather than'I'thinking....whena society of others presence encourages andencourage individual self-interest altruism, deliberaneedstodiscourage 1991,7-8). tionin publicwill oftenservethatend"(Mansbridge theoristsshareMansbridge's Othercontemporary thatthe recognition deliberation needsto preserve some spacefor acknowprojectof mutual Hanna forinstance, pointsoutthat Pitkin, ledgingconflictsanddifferences. one of the aims of deliberation-requires distributive justice-presumably individual selvesin thecommunity (Pitkin1981). acknowledging Pitkinand Shumer not only acknowledge the possibility of conflictin discussions butconsider conflictintegral democratic to them:"conflictandpersuasion-iswhatmakes handled in democratic ways,withopenness democracy work, what makes for the mutualrevisionof opinionsand andThompson interest" (Pitkinand Shumer1982,47; see also Gutmann of arrival at some here,an expectation 1996).Yetclearlythere'sa priority areto be revised, orshifted interests in kindof consensus. modified, Special
In addition, the nameof discovering common. something common life not butis expected to assistit. Charles only emergesin deliberation Larmore, along with JohnRawls,suggeststhatdisagreements may be resolvedor bypassedwhen citizenscan referto the "beliefsthey still share"or to "common to Rawls1971). ground" (Larmore 1996,referring Pitkinand Shumer, and Larmore, Mansbridge, represent attempts by democratic theorists to acknowledge contemporary conflictanddifference to uncover, andrelyupon,a communal withina broader project orientation. These approaches, however,carrya risk thatparticular and perspectives in theinterests willbe effaced, of minorities interests oroppressed especially a wayto identify Neither whenor if particular groups. perspective suggests bepublicly honored. Neither fordeciding interests should a standard suggests as a wholemustattend to veryparticular whenthecommunity perspectives, hasanyplacein deliberation. or whether suchattention assemblies Yet surelythereare occasionswhendemocratic shoulddo nothinglike pursuethe commongood but insteadshouldjust listen and The testimonyof Japanese respondto particular complaints. Americans World WarII beforeCongress relocated during was, for example,such a Thefirstmajor withthedemocratic moment. of a communal problem pursuit deliberation is thisriskof discrediting orientation through interests. particular to thinking Oneof the morepromising abouthonoring approaches parcomesfromacknowledging theneedfordemocrats to listenas well ticularity as to talk in theirdeliberations. Barber announces this need in Benjamin
StrongDemocracy:
of self-legislation Theparticipatory that characterizes process strong democracy attempts to balance themutualistic artof listening. "Iwilllisten" adversary politics bynourishing means tothestrong democrat notthat I willscanmyadversary's forweaknessess position and nor even(asa minimalist potential trade-offs, that might think) Iwilltolerantly permit himto say whatever he chooses.Itmeans, "Iwill putmyselfin his place,I will rather, I will strain to hearwhatmakes us alike,I will listenfora common tryto understand, of a common rhetoric evocative ora common purpose good.(Barber 1984,175)
Yetwhatis acknowledged is onlywhatcanbe incorporated, by thelistener whatis identifiably similar. Whilewhatis different, distinctive, unique, or uncommon it is not,onthemodelof listening maybe articulated, detailed by to oracknowledged. attended Barber, Preferred attention to what'scommon increases therisksof outright denial of theperspectives of minorities. If these are unsettling, or if members perspectives of the dominant discomfiting, in ignoring grouphavean interest them,thentheriskscontained in seeking a common voiceincrease. Forexample, White feminists havetended to think in termsof a genericcategory of woman, an approach whichmayusefully
362
THEORY / June1997 POLITICAL
someformof solidarity butalsodenies White women's encourage complicity with racism.This pointhas emerged thatBlack clearlyin the criticisms of theuniversalizing inWhite havemade tendencies feminist feminists theory andpolitics(Smith1982;hooks1981;Joseph andLewis 1981;Dill 1983; Spelman 1988;Collins1990). of acknowledging andcrediting Giventhedifficulties interests particular in themidstof a broad of commonality, it is notsurprising pursuit to findthat honorof a higher valuethanoneselfcan also workto discredit demanding around theparticular socialmovements interests of oppressed forged groups. used by AlbertMartin, The language a husband abandoned in his wife's andthe author pursuitof her own individuality of One Man, Hurt is an extreme Martin of "theenshrinement of individuality, example: complains of marital of self, attheexpense unionandsocialcompromise" thefreedom in Klatch1987,128). (quoted When someonelike Martincalls for social compromise, we readily withanattempt toresurrect thisappeal a state of affairs identify characterized not onlyby unitybutalsoby dominance andinequality. Yetsuchanappeal is not readilydistinguishable fromostensibly moremoderate perspectives Bellahet al. 1985).In settings (compare wheretherearegrossinequities in powerandstatus,callingfor compromise maybe perilously close to supthechallenging pressing of marginalized perspectives groups. Suchsuppresis notdemocratic. sion,whenit occurs, Andavoiding it requires anability to noticewhichindividuals havemorepowerthanothers, regularly andwhose dominate. The appealto democratic perspectives regularly deliberation atleastby itself,provide a wayto takenoticeof andrespond doesn't, to such imbalances. to deliberate in America Learning mightbe inseparable fromindoctrination in familiar routines of hierarchy anddeference, becausethe settings whereAmericans deliberate aren'tisolatedfrom statusinequalities. The extentto whichthese concernsare troubling will be clearerfollowinga reviewof some of the apparent factsaboutdeliberation collectedin social
scientific studies of juries.
THEPOSSIBILITIES FOR DELIBERATION IN THE UNITEDSTATES
Thequestion of whether democrats canachieve democratic goalsthrough deliberation athowdeliberation maybe addressed bylooking actually seems in settings toproceed where American citizens talktoeachother, faceto face.
andregular of socialoppression Statusinequalities patterns mightintrude whenAmericans deliberate to makedemocratic sufficiently goals,suchas andautonomy, remoteandunlikely. on enhancing community Depending theseproblems how pernicious are,theymaypersisteven wheneveryone andhas the time,money,andinformation for it. knowshow to deliberate in democratic broad discussions Promoting participation more mayrequire thematerial to deliberation orsuggesting the thanguaranteeing prerequisites voice. of a common pursuit it is in the If American politicsis ever considered reallydemocratic, of the jury:juries are supposedto capture what'sbest about institution When individual citizens intheadministraAmerican democracy. participate less magisterial. Citizen tionof justice,lawseemsless remote, participation of legalinstitutions as at leastpartly buttressed helpssecurethe reputation And also seem a bulwark of individual bypopular sovereignty. juries liberties, to fendfor thosewho standaccused. Themassive sincejurorsareinclined andZeiselcompared verdicts empirical studyof American juriesby Kalven trials to thedeterminations delivered byjuriesincriminal judgeswouldhave without of the rendered hadthe casesbeenheard juries.Almostfour-fifths butwhentheydiffered, weremore time, judgesand juriesagreed, jurors likely thanjudges to find in favorof the defendant (Kalvenand Zeisel 1966). in theadministration citizensareinvolved of justice,albeit because Further, the lens of a particular to consider through the case, they areencouraged beforethemfroma broader, socialperspective andto leaveaside, questions theirimmediate at leasttemporarily, andpersonal concerns. on a juryseemsto involveexactlythe skillsandcapacities Participation thatdemocrats in other hopeAmericans thedeliberamight practice settings: tivejuryis supposed to be composed andconsiderate, exactlynotan angry mob. In the jury,citizenscall on theirrational facultiesand considera or at leastimpersonal, notpersonal, common, problem. Juries appear to be like schoolsfor democrats, something as Tocqueville suggested theywere. But of courseTocqueville hadparticular lessonsin mind,not necessarily thoseadmired by contemporary theorists. Tocqueville considered Americans in need of reminders aboutstatusanddeference, whichhe thought were ideally communicated throughthe mechanismof the civil jury. Unlike criminaltrials, where Tocquevilleanticipatedmodernsocial science by suspectingthatjurorswould sympathizewith defendants, civil trials on his view could encourage juries to look to judges for and And expertise on juries was furtherlaudguidance. participation able, in Tocqueville's eachjuror"comesintodailycontact eyes, because withthebest-educated andmost-enlightened members of theupper classes."
364
Tocqueville thoughtlawyerscountedas a "classapart" fromthe people, of resembling "Egyptian priests, being,as theywere,theonlyinterpreter[s] an occultscience" (Tocqueville 1969,275, 267). found much torecommend in thehumbling Although Tocqueville aspects a basically he assumed of thecourtroom, in class homogenous juryinferior andstatus tojudgesandlawyers. Hedidn't thepossibility that citizens explore Yetcontemporary socialscientific evidencesugmightdeferto eachother. in ways thatareentirelyunsurprising and gests thatexactlythathappens, predictable given the inequalities familiarin the broader society.When injuries, assemble Americans thestatus, and theydo notleavebehind power, thattheyholdin theoutside world. privileges of groupleader, Mostjurydeliberations a forebeginwiththe selection Farmoreoftenthannot,theperson is a Whitemalewitha person. selected andprevious college degree.Postgraduate work,a high-status occupation, the chancesof beingselected. further enhance Women juryexperience are chosento head than their onjuries juriesmuchless frequently representation suggeststheyshouldbe (HansandVidmar 1986). andeconomic do notdetermine selection Gender, racial, privilege asjury leaderin a director immediate sense,however. Instead, they increase the of behavior thatleadsto selectionas headof thejury.Speaking likelihood of thetable firstandsitting atthehead increase theprobability of beingchosen andhigh-status men engagein thesebehaviors as foreperson, moreoften of the waythatthejuryforeman (HansandVidmar was 1986).An account
selected in the trial of John De Loreancapturesthese dynamics:"The first
wasto selecta groupleader. itemof business Vern a former Lahr, highway the issue firstandstoodcapablyat the blackboard mentioned patrolman, Not surprisingly, he waschosenforthejob"(Hans askingfor nominations. andVidmar, 1986,16). Another enhancer of thechance important to be selected as foreperson is a claimof somekindof prior notnecessarily experience, though experience with jury service.In a studyof mockjuries,PhoebeEllsworth and her
colleagues found that, though almost two-thirdsof the jurors studied were
women,men were chosento headjuries nearly90 percentof the time.

Ellsworthreportsthat
For ten of the eighteenjuries, the process of foremanselection can be summedup by the phrase "choose a man who says he has experience.". . . Since we knew which of our subjects had actuallyserved on realjuries, we were able to find out whetherthe people chosen as foremanwere actuallymore likely to have had priorjury experiencethat the otherjurors.They were not more experienced:39 percentof the foremenhad served on
Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION365 with36 percent of theother aninsignificant difference. juries, as compared jurors, Thus, is someonewho claimsexperience, not necessarily a foreman soneone who has it. (Ellsworth 1989,213)
of theforeperson thecourse Selection encapsulates patterns repeated through Studies conducted overthelastfourdecades of thejury'sdeliberations. have reinforced the basicfindingthatmentalkmorein juries; consistently jury morelikelyto be men,arealso inclined to participate leaders, already more in deliberation. Evenwhentheforeman is excluded thanother jurymembers of whogenerally talksmostduring fromthecalculations men deliberations, thediscussion stilldominate amounts andVidmar bysignificant (Hans 1986; andPennington Marsden 1987;Hastie, Penrod, 1983). mentalkmore than Thesimple factthat women deliberations injury might inclinedto hold strictlyto a standard give pause to democrats of equal If it's demonstrable in groupdiscussions. thatsome kindsof participation morethanothers in deliberative as it is, then peopleroutinely speak settings, isn'tequal,andonedemocratic standard hasfallen.Butdemoparticipation cratsneedn't thestandard of strictly give up so easily.Onemightrelinquish andsayinstead thatas longas mostorall viewsavailable equalparticipation to the grouparesomehow andconsidered, it doesn'tmatter who expressed somepeopletalkmorethanothers. sayswhator whether Yetstudiesof juriessuggestthatwhether anideais expressed in thefirst whether it is the place, apprehended by group,andwhether it prevailsin all depend on whether the ideahas a talkative deliberations, promoter. For themere to talka lotappears to increase instance, thechances propensity that onewill beviewedaspresenting compelling arguments. Studies ofjuriesand othersmallgroups indicate thatindividuals whospeak themostarelikelyto be viewedas most persuasive by othergroupmembers andthatit is the of remarks, nottheirquality, thatseemsto drivetheseperceptions quantity eachjuror's (Marsden 1987).Inprinciple, perspective should be givenequal weightin groupdeliberations, but simplyincreasing the volumeof one's seemsto increase thechances thatone'sopinions commentary will prevail. Studiesof the behavior of interracial groupsin American classrooms thegeneral thatemerges support fromstudies finding ofjuries,thatmembers of the dominant groupin society also tend to dominate in small groups on a common working Dominance is shownin thesestudies problem. notto be attributable to any greater skill on the partof the dominant group.One worktogether earlystudyfoundthatwheninterracial groups on a collective aremoreactiveandinfluential. task,Whitestudents
366
Katz,Benjaminand Goldstonfoundthatblack college studentsdisplayedmarkedsocial to white partners in a cooperativeproblem-solving inhibitionandsubordination situation, even when subjects were matchedon intelligence and made to display equal ability at thanblacks;bothblacks and whites talked the task ... Whites initiatedmore interaction more to whites dtanto blacks. (Cohen 1982, 210-1).
these studies controlledfor factors such as age, height, socioImportantly, economic status, and attitudes toward school. Even when students were matchedon these demographicfactorsas well as on ability at the problemsolving task pursued by the group, high-status members were routinely to the groupproblemwere better.They spoke treatedas if theircontribution more duringgroup discussions, and they were given more opportunitiesto make suggestions;in postmeetingquestionnaires, groupmembersperceived the high-statusparticipants as having betterideas and as having done more to guide the group. These results hold whetherthe racial comparisonsare between Anglo and Mexican Americanstudents,black and white students, Native Americans and whites, or Israelis or Europeanand Middle-Eastern backgroundstudents(Cohen 1982). If dominancein groupdiscussionsis not attributable to the superiorskills at reasoning,argument,or deliberationof the dominantgroup,then it is not the skills for deliberationmore widely will solve the likely thatdistributing problems of unequal participationor influence. Instead, improving democratic discussion seems to require interventionsin the structureof group deliberations. Jury studies provide fodder not only for democraticworries about the course of group deliberationsin the United States but also for suggestions abouthow discussions might be structured to make problemsof dominance andhierarchyless pressing.For instance,it appearsthatsome styles of group discussion are more likely to elicit the views of all groupmembersthan are others. Social psychologists distinguish between "evidence-driven"and "verdict-driven" deliberationstyles in juries. Verdict-driven juries decide to take a vote early on to see whereeveryonestands.They tendto arriveat their final determinations relativelyquickly,withthe verdictalmostalwaysreflecting the positionof the majorityin the initialvote. By contrast, juries engaging in evidence-driven deliberations tendto discuss the meritsof certainperspectives on the evidence withouttaking an initial vote or otherwiseassociating certainjurorswith certainperspectives. When jury deliberationsare focused more on eliciting a range of views insteadof on the commonproblemof arrivingat a verdict,they appearlikely to provokebotha moreconsiderate discussionandone thatleavesjurorsmore satisfied with their participation: jurors on evidence-drivenjuries report thinking they have done a good job more frequently than do jurors on
verdict-driven andVidmar juries(Hans if ajury 1986;Brown1986).Further, decidesto defervotinguntildiscussing theevidence, it canapparently hold off themechanisms thatallowsomeindividuals to dominate discussions:
Inanideally fairandrational deliberation allthearguments of bothfactions will process, be weighedbeforecomingto a decision,whichmay be required to be explicitly unanimous. Themajority, we know,hassomepower to influence theperceptual judgments of theminority by theforceof conformity, whichhasnothing to do withrational andit is alsoknown thatsmallminorities in juriessometimes argument, agreeto "go witha unanimous verdict along" that it is correct. although theyhavenotbeenpersuaded (Brown 1986,286)
Verdict-driven deliberations reduce thechances of a broad consideration of all views on theevidence, reduce the likelihood of a rational discussion, andincrease thepressures toconformity. Butverdict-driven deliberations are morein keeping witha malestyleof discourse andaremorelikelyto occur whenmenhead juries.Somesocial-scientific studies thatwomen suggest are morelikelythanmento encourage anevidence-driven styleof deliberation. to accommodate Women appear different pointsof viewbetter thanmendo.
Instudies of all-female themore active groups, tried todraw speakers outthemore silent is a keycharacteristic which members, of evidence-driven Incontrast, in all-male juries. themoreactivemembers groups, eventually ignored theless activemembers, whichis a key characteristic of verdict-driven juries.Themendisplayed with competitiveness othermen,whereas the womenexpressed withotherwomen.In mixed cooperation groups, however, thewomen consistently became more If women silent. areencouraged to speak more andmenarereminded to listenmore, women maybe abletobring tojury theirtendency deliberations to engagein evidence-driven discussion. (Marsden 1987, 603-4;see alsoKanter 1979)
If partof whatdeliberation meansis bringing moreparticipants andmore intocommon perspectives discussions andto ensure thatdifferent viewsare considered it is notlikelyto be increased seriously, just by distributing the skillsfor deliberation morewidely.Thatis, ensuring participation in delibandguaranteeing eration, a discussion thatcalls on all perspectives, is not of teaching just a matter to argue. everyone To meetthe concern of equal democrats shouldexplicitlyattendto issues of groupdyparticipation, namicsandtryto developwaysto undercut thedominance of higher-status individuals. Democratic deliberation mightalso be endorsed as a surercoursethan decisionmaking an elite by groupto a fairorjust decisionaboutissuesof common interest. In thiscaseagain,however, studiesof juriessuggestthat who participates mostin common deliberations has somebearing on what
368
/June1997 THEORY POLITICAL
theoutcome of thosediscussions willbe,andonwhether thosedecisions will be viewedas fairorjustby all members of thecommunity. Somestudiesof jurieshaveexamined thequestion of whether thejuryis at a fairorjust verdict. to arrive competent in manyof these Competency hasbeenassessed studies thecorrespondence between verdicts byexamining tojuries.Since,as a general rendered byjudgesas compared matter, judges and juries tend overwhelmingly to arriveat the same verdicts,by this look fair or rightin termsof theiroutcome, standard, jury deliberations
despite the apparently troublingdynamicsof deliberations (HansandVidmar 1986; Hastie, Penrod,and Pennington1983). Otherjury studies, however,suggest thatthe dynamicsof deliberationwho dominates, whose perspective is suppressed-might be quite consequential for the fairness or justice of the outcome of deliberations.Phoebe Ellsworth and her colleagues found, in studies of "death-qualified" juries (juriescomposedof individualswilling to impose the deathpenaltyin capital crimes), thatthesejuries aremorelikely to convict thanotherjuries:they are biased against the defendant (Cowan, Thompson, and Ellsworth 1984; FitzgeraldandEllsworth1984). Ajury composedof death-qualified jurorsis also unrepresentative of the broader population.It is more likely to be made up of White men who are Christians,Republicans,and wealthy, and less likely to be composed of women, Blacks, poor people, Democrats, Jews,
oragnostics. atheists,
A suppositionwe might draw,puttingtogetherthe findings aboutdeathqualifiedjuries andwhatwe know aboutthe dynamicsof deliberation, is that,
to theextentthathigher-status individuals dominate jurydiscussions, juries defendants. may veertoward Further convicting evidencein this direction fromstudies hasemerged of theresponses of jurors to testimony by experts on domesticviolence,in trialsof womenwho haveclaimed to havekilled in self-defense. theirbatterers foundthatmalejurors ReginaSchuller were "more andto offerunfavorable likelyto favorguiltyverdicts interpretations of the defendant's stateof mindandof herabilityto leavethe situation in whichshe foundherself'(Vidmar andSchuller 1989,154).Attitudes about crimeandaboutwhodeserves to be convicted arenotrandomly distributed acrossthepopulation of jurors. Instead, conviction-proneness to be appears in individuals concentrated whopossesscharacteristics similar to the characteristics of those who tendto dominate discussions. The dominance of individuals in discussions higher-status mayshiftnotonly thestylebutthe outcome of thesediscussions. Themostimportant democratic hopefordeliberation is thatdeliberation, in juriesor elsewhere, enhances citizenship by inspiring autonomy and a senseof community; inother itproduces words, conditions of mutual respect.
of oppression socialhierarchies andpatterns thisgoal, Yetagain, mayhamper so thatparticipation afflictingdeliberation sufficiently instillsa sense of thaneither orcommunity. rather alienation autonomy accountsby AfricanAmerican Firsthand jurorsin the trialof Robert a finalverdict, Chambers (who,beforethejuryhadreached pleaded guilty in thedeath of DawnLevin)reinforce to first-degree theview manslaughter in termsof race,economicbackground, thatjurorswho areprivileged or fromthose who are not, gendertend to haveperspectives quitedifferent thatdeliberation orhelprecall,a sense belyingtheexpectation might inspire, of community. Thedistance between jurors' perspectives maybe sufficient so thatless privileged feel that their views are a possibility jurors discounted, of a senseof autonomy. withthepromotion clearlynotin keeping timein the Chambers Robert Nickeywas servingon a juryfor thethird of the New YorkJudicial trial.He testifiedin the 1988 publichearings Commission on Minorities to his beliefthathis views weresystematically unheeded by Whitejurors. Nickeyreported askingthe other jurorsif they Chambers of murder wouldhaveanydifficulty withintentif he convicting metwithsilence.He alsoexpressed wereBlack,andhavinghis inquiry his with the legal system:"I alwaysfelt andwas taughtthat disillusionment Butthatis notso hereinNewYork" justicewasblindto race,color,orcreed. thereactions to the verdict in the (as quotedin Davis 1989, 1569).Indeed, SimiValleytrialof thepoliceofficers of beating accused Rodney King,and trialof 0. J. Simpson, to the criminal reveala profound of the idea distrust thatAmericans to a common mightresolvetheirdisagreements by resorting ground. Because dominance to be a function of status appears andtheattributions of superiority thataccompany skillsandresources it, distributing for deliberation is unlikelyto ensuremoreegalitarian anddemocratic discussions. moreobviously, neither is urging thediscovery Perhaps of a common voice theproblems of inequality likelyto address in group deliberations. Thegoal of democratic discussion should notbe teaching to deliberate, everyone but tryingto figureout a way to makesurethateveryoneparticipates and is andtaken in discussions. effectively represented seriously
AN ALTERNATIVE TODELIBERATION?
I shouldsay thatI amnotentirely deliberation. ButI amagainst against it is premature it fornow:I think as a standard forAmerican democrats, who areconfronted withmoreimmediate AndI think thestandard problems. has
370
pernicious to theextentthatit is distracting frommorebasic consequences, of inclusion andmutual andto theextent thatit favors problems recognition, anddiscourse thatmakesit likelythatthe talkof an a formof expression of theAmerican identifiable andprivileged sector willdominate public public dialogue. identification of deliberation Modemdemocrats' with the pursuitof a from the egalitarian concernto enhance commonvoice steals attention modemdemocratic theorists effectiveparticipation. also wantto Although of the disenfranchised honorthe concernto bringthe perspectives into theirappeal to deliberation undercuts thisconcern. publicdiscussions, The has strings is a request to deliberate attached. Deliberation for a invitation andoriented kindof talk:rational, to a shared certain contained, problem. haveusedthestandards of expertise, Whereantidemocrats and moderation, as a way to excludeaverage communal orientation citizensfrompolitical democrats seemto adopt thesestandards as guides modern decision-making, for whatdemocratic connotapoliticsshouldbe like.Andtheexclusionary tionsof thesestandards persist. thatdemocratic discussion should be rational, Arguing moderate, andnot selfishimplicitly excludes talk is public that impassioned, andthe extreme, interests. Thisis onesetof indictments of particular product of thedemocratic Theevidence to deliberation. fromsocialscientific appeal studiesof delibin juriesandclassrooms eration Themodelof criticism. suggestsa further deliberation account of the waysthatstatus simplydoes nottakesufficient and hierarchy of talkingand listeningto ensurethat all shapepatterns areconsidered, thatparticipation in a publicdiscussion perspectives instills a sense of autonomy, andthatthe pursuit of a commoninterest does not coincidewiththepromotion of theviewsof thedominant. An alternative to deliberation as a modelfor democratic politicshas to begin by tryingto rule out the problems thatthe critique of deliberation reveals.Thatis, thealternative should avoidstated or implicit requirements thattalkbe onlyrational andmoderate, or thattheonlyperspectives worth to areperspectives attending thatilluminate whatis common. Instead of focusingso exclusively on deliberation, American democrats couldcullanalternative modelfrom their political history. Theideaof giving of tellingone'sparticular testimony, hasimportant storyto a broader group, inAmerican precedents inAfrican politics, particularly American politics and churches (Smithernan 1977).Suggesting testimony as a potentially better standard for democratic discussionsthandeliberation does not rule out
deliberation doesnotruleouttestimony. Both deliberation, justas suggesting democratic Butthecurrent mayhavesomeplacein a broad stateof process. American afflicted politicsis sufficiently exclusive,sufficiently by patterns so thatevenhanded of dominance, areunlikely. Public groupdeliberations in theUnitedStatesseemlikelyto replicate thehierarchies discussions that in domains thataren't areidentifiable Forexample, the explicitly political. qualityof life in the UnitedStatesis vastlydifferent for BlackAmericans thesedifferences aremeasured thanforWhites,whether in terms of income, oreducation Research employment, Council health, (National 1989).Butthe is perhaps evenmoredaunting: epistemological problem WhitesandBlacks worlds. There arefewpolicyorpolitical see different issuesonwhich Whites and Blacksare willingto expresseven remotelysimilarviews to survey allmatters on virtually of American interviewers: Blacksand public opinion, Whitesaredividedby a wide (andof coursestatistically significant) gulf andSanders about (Kinder racial andgender 1992).Evidence differences in while not definitiveby itself, supports jury deliberations, the sketchof American societyas a societycharacterized divisions between by important whether measured interms of power, groups of life,orpolitical status, quality views.If we allowthatsomeAmericans aremorealienated thanothers, that some arerelatively thenthe modelof democratic disenfranchised, politics to by democratic subscribed theorists shouldtryto remedy, not reinforce, theseproblems. Testimony mightbe a modelthatallowsfor the expression of different rather thanseekingwhat'scommon. perspectives Thecontrast between the of commonality, andthesimpler aimto include pursuit andrepresent a fuller rangeof critical voices,is at thecoreof thedifference between deliberation Forexample, andtestimony. whereCohenandRogers complain of thelack of a "common voice"(1983, 17) bell hooksarticulates the needforcritical
voices:
Yearningis the word thatbest describesa common psychological state sharedby many of us, cuttingacross boundariesof race, class, gender,and sexual practice.Specifically, in relationto the post-modernist deconstruction of "master" narratives, the yearningthat wells in the heartsand mindsof those whom such narratives have silenced is the longing for criticalvoice.... [Rapmusic] began as a form of "testimony" for the underclass.It has enabledunderclassblackyouthto develop a criticalvoice, as a groupof young black men told me, a "commonliteracy." Rap projectsa criticalvoice, explaining,demanding, urging.(hooks 1990, 27)
372
THEORY/June 1997 POLITICAL
not is tellingone'sown story, aboutgivingtestimony Whatis fundamental to thedevelopment of a hooksrefers dialogue. Although seekingcommunal excluded to a group thatis usually thisvoiceis common "common literacy," to a and the voice thatcontributes from the discourseof the dominant, is posedby hooksin opposition of, to, andas a criticism "common literacy" in testimony of findinga There'sno assumption discourse. this dominant to theresolution of a of a discussion oriented common aim,no expectation for thestandard is alsoradically egalitarian: Testimony community problem. should is simplythateveryone of publicattention whether a view is worthy Whatmightrecommend testimony havea voice, a chanceto tell herstory. more intodemocratic is theneedtobring perspectives right nowtodemocrats andto figureouta waynotto closeoff theviewsof anybecause discussions the standard of testinot common. Unlikedeliberation, they aredifferent, if are voiced in an or exclude immoderate not does positions they mony thedemocratic consideration ladenway.Testimony encourages emotionally rootedin common of perspectives not obviously of the worthiness ground voicedina calmly rational testimony andnotnecessarily way.Inother words, of reasonable, collective consideration of novel,if couldopenthepossibility disquieting, perspectives. of a precursor inthethought of John hassomething Stuart Mill, Testimony construed of democratic a writer moreregularly as a proponent deliberation. to reform in his writing British century societythatMilltried Thenineteenth American by divisionsandexclusociety,afflicted was,like contemporary a disenfranchised sions. WhenMill spokeaboutthe benefitsof including he spokeaboutthe primary aim of group,women,in publicdiscussions, not discovenrng a commonvoice. In 7he an excluded perspective, hearing Mill wrotethatnothing can be knownof definitive Subjection of Women, themselves havegivenbutlittletestimony." They women,since "women to the generalpublic" (Mill 1975, had not beenallowedto "tellanything
454, 456).
that suggests thatMillsaidin 1869,orthat bellhookssaystoday, Nothing everbe about all thatdemocratic is citizens tellingtheirown politicsshould to ButbothMill andhooksattend stories,in theirown ways,to eachother. of exclusion anddifference in a waythat immediate andpressing problems theorists avoid.Whenthe perspectives of somecitizensare contemporary in public discourse,then democratic politics systematically suppressed of these excluded shouldaim simply and first to ensurethe expression of aimingfor a common Instead might discussion, democrats perspectives.
thatthosewho areusually adopta morefundamental goal:to tryto ensure learnto speakwhether left out of publicdiscussions theirperspectives are learnto heartheperspeccommonor not,andthosewho usuallydominate tivesof others.
NOTES
1. Thefirstdraft of "Against Deliberation" waspresented at theMidwest Political Science in April1991.SincethenI havepresented Annual Association Meeting it formally to other itwithmany, andhave, groups, discussed distributed itinoneversion many people, upon request, Thiswidecirculation or another to stillothers. hasproduced innumerable valuable comments andreactions, andtoomuch to incorporate goodadvice here. Whilefewof thesereaders willbe to their ableto locateheremyresponses I stillwantto acknowledge specific suggestions, them, whodidnotreadtheessaybutresponded alongwithothers to myrequests foradviceabout it. Forthishelp,I amgrateful to Elizabeth Robert Michael Anderson, Calvert, Phoebe Dawson, DonHerzog, Ellsworth, JonElster, JimJohnson, Jack Stephen Holmes, Bernard Knight, Manin, Michael Neblo,RickPildes,StevePincus, Frank Sposito, Jackie Laura Stevens, Cass Stoker, Joan andmany others I'veneglected Sunstein, in thislist. Tronto, 2. Thisis nottodisregard suchasthosemade attempts, byRawls (1993)andLarmore (1996) to articulate theconditions that reasonable citizens inorder might agree todevelop upon morally justifiable solutions to theirdisagreements. Instead, my generalization refersto thedearth of attempts toconsider whether citizens arelikely ordinary toactreasonably, asreason is considered morl philosophers by contemporary anddemocratic theorists. on someformsof pluralism, 3. Though rational decision isn'twhatthespecialists making In the mostclassicstatement, dealsinstead. do, it is cutting Bentleydiscusses pluralism as a that clashof interests is reconciled viaskillsfarremoved from reason-giving (1908); fora recent see Becker(1983).Sunstein variant, (1988)castsdeliberation (in part)as the antithesis of See alsoMansbridge interest-group pluralism. (1992). 4. InFrederick 1852Fourth of JulyOration, Douglass's heobjected totheideathat hewould be expected to argue against slavery (Foner 1950).
REFERENCES
Bruce.1980.Social justice in the liberal state. New Haven, Ackerman, CT:YaleUniversity
Press.
Almond, andSidney Verba. Gabriel, 1963. Thecivic culture:Political attitudesand democracy infive nations. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1984.Strong democracy: Participatorypolitics for a new age. Berkeley: Barber, Benjamin. of California Press. University
374
/ June1997 POLITICAL THEORY
for political influence. Becker, Gary.1983.A theoryof competition amongpressure groups Journal Quarterly of Economics 98(3):371-400. WiliamM. Sullivan, AnnSwindler, Richard andStevenM. lipton. Bellah,Robert, Madsen, and commitment in American 1985. Habitsof the heart:Individualism life. Berkeley: Press. of California University F. 1908.The of Chicago Press. Artiur Bendey, processof government. Chicago: University andW.McPhee. 1954.Voting. of Chicago Press. Berelson, B., P.Lazarfeld, Chicago: University 1986.Social Thesecond edition. NewYork: FreePress. Brown, Roger. psychology: ontheRevolution inFrance. 1987. Edited Pocock. Edmund. Burke, Reflections byJ.G.A. [17901 Hackett. Reprint, Indianapolis: andthepublic ed. 1992.Habermas MA:MITPress. Calhoun, Craig, sphere. Cambridge, statesandinterracial in schoolsettings. interaction Annual Cohen,E. G. 1982.Expectation 8:209-35. Review of Sociology NewYork: andJoelRogers. 1983.Ondemocracy. Books. Cohen, Joshua, Penguin Hill.1990.Black Feminist Boston: Patricia Unwin Collins, Thought. Hyman. andnon-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. InThe Converse, Philip.[1963]1969.Attitudes edited R.Tufte. quantitative analysis MA: ofsocialproblems, by Edward Reprint, Reading, Addison-Wesley. andP.C.Ellsworth. C.L.,W.C.Thompson, 1984.Theeffectsof death Cowan, on qualification toconvict andonthequality of deliberation. LawandHuman juror's predisposition Behavior 8:53-79. to democratic 1956.Apreface of Chicago Press. Dahl,Robert. theory. Chicago: University Yale LawJournal Davis,PeggyC. 1989.Lawas microaggression. 98:1559-77. Thornton. 1983.Race,class,andgender: foranall-inclusive Dill,Bonnie sisterhood. Prospects Feminist Studies 9:131-50. 1989.Thenewpolitics of Chicago Press. Downs,Donald. ofpornography. Chicago: University Phoebe. 1989.Aretwelveheads better than one?LawandContemporary Ellsworth, Problems 52(4):205-24. James andDeliberation. S. 1991.Democracy NewHaven: Fsshkin, YaleUniversity Press. 1984.Dueprocess Fitzgerald, R.,andP.C. Ellsworth. vs. crime control: Death qualification and LawandHuman Behavior juryattitudes. 8:31-51. of Frederick Foner, PhilipS. 1950.Thelife andwritings S. Douglass. NewYork: International Publishers. 1996.Democracy Gutmann, Amy,andDennis anddisagreement. Thompson. Cambridge, MA: Press. Harvard, Belknap Habermas, Jurgen. [1962]1992.Thestructural transfonration of thepublicsphere. Reprint, MA:MITPress. Cambridge, Hans,Valerie P.,andNeilJ.Vidmar. 1986.Judging the jury.NewYork: Plenum. andN. Pennington. Hastie,Reid,S. Penrod, 1983.Insidethejury.Cambridge, MA:Harvard Press. University Held,David.1987.Models of democracy. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press. Don.1989.Happy slaves.Chicago: Herzog, University of Chicago Press. I a woman: hooks,bell. 1981.Ain't Black women Boston: South EndPress. andfeminism. . 1990.Yearning: andcultural Race,gender politics. Boston: South EndPress. Johnson, James,and JackKnight.1996. Whatsort of politicalequalitydoes democratic deliberation require? Unpublished manuscript.
DELIBERATION375 Sanders / AGAINST

Joseph,Gloria,andJill Lewis. 1981. Common differences:Conflictsin Blackand Whitefeminist
Boston: EndPress. South perspectives. Brown. American Littde, jury.Boston: Kalven H.,andH. Zeisel.1966.The NewYork: BasicBooks. Moss.1979.Menandwomen of thecorporation. Kanter, Rosabeth
Kinder,Donald R., and LynnM. Sanders.1996. Dividedby color: Racialpolitics and American
Press. of Chicago University democracy. Chicago: Press. 1987.Women Rebecca. Philadelphia: Temple University of thenewright. Klatch, of 1994.Aggregation anddeliberation: On thepossibility Knight, Jack,andJamesJohnson. 22:277-96. Political Theory democratic legitimacy. NewYork: Press. 1996.Themorals Cambridge University Charles. of modernity. Larmore, 1980.Thepolicymaking Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Charles. process,2d ed. Englewood Lindblom, Hall. NewYork: Oxford Press. University C. B. 1965.Therealworld of democracy. MacPherson, and deliberation. Political 338-368. Bernard. 1987.Onlegitimacy Theory 15(3): political Manin, In Thepoliticsof Jane.1992.A deliberative representation. theoryof interest Mansbridge, edited by MarkP.Petracca.Boulder,CO: Westview interests:Interestgroups transformed, Press. andjury deliberations. YaleLaw Journal dynamics Marsden, Nancy.1987. Note:Gender 96:593-612.
government,the subjectionof Mill, John Stuart.1975. Threeessays: On liberty,representative
Press. NewYork: Oxford women. University

National ResearchCouncil. 1989. A commondestiny:Blacks and Americansociety. Editedby
DC:National Press. andR. M.Williams. G. D. Jaynes Academy Washington, NewYork: Oxford Press. Anne.1995.The University politicsofpresence. Phillips, of California 1967.Theconcept Press. Hanna. Berkeley: University of representation. Pitkin, andpublic. Political Onrelating Theory 9(3):327-52. private . 1981.Justice: andSaraShumer. 1982.Onparticipation. Democracy 2(4):43-54. Pitkin, Hanna, MA:Belknap Pressof Harvard John.1971.A theory University. Cambridge, Rawls, ofjustice. liberalism. NewYork: Press. Columbia University . 1993.Political in a democracy. InThe B. 1988.Policymaking by powerofpublicideas,edited Reich,Robert B. Reich.Cambridge, MA:Ballinger. Robert
socialismand democracy.Reprint, London:Allen Schumpeter, Joseph.[1942] 1976. Capitalism,
andUnwin.
Sidney, Sir Philip. 1984. The countess of Pembroke'sArcadia. Edited by Maurice Evans.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1982.Racism andwomen's studies. InButsomeofusarebrave, Barbara. edited byGloria Smith, T.Hull,Patricia BellScott,andBarbara Smith. OldWestbury, NY:Feminist Press.
Smitherman,Geneva. 1977. Talkin'and testifyin': The language of Black America. Detroit:
Press. StateUniversity Wayne Elizabeth V. 1988.Inessential Woman. Beacon Press. Boston: Spelman, Cass.1988.Beyond therepublican revival. LawJournal 97:1539-90. Yale Sunstein, Pantheon Books. world. NewYork: Thomas, Keith.1983.Manandthenatural Alexis.1969.Democracy inAmerica. de Tocqueville, Translated edited by George Lawerence, NewYork: Anchor Books. by J. P.Mayer. testievidence: Socialframework Schuller. 1989.Juries andexpert Vidmar, Neil, andRegina
problems52(4):133-76. mony. Law and contemporary
1981.Thepeople's twobodies. 1(1):9-24. democracy Wolin, Sheldon.
376
POLITICAL THEORY/ June 1997
LynnM. Sandersreceivedher Ph.D in political sciencefrom the Universityof Michigan and her A.B. at MountHolyoke College. AssistantProfessorof Political Science at The Universityof Chicago, where she teaches and conducts research in the areas of U. S. politics, public opinion, race and gender

Against Deliberation - Lynn Sanders

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Against Deliberation - Lynn Sanders

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Against Deliberation Author(s): Lynn M. Sanders Source: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jun., 1997), pp.

LYNNM. SANDERS University of Chicago

seemsirrational.' A commitment deliberation opposing ADMITTEDLY,

POLMCAL THEORY/ June 1997

THETROUBLE WITH DELIBERATION

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 349

/ June1997 THEORY POLMCAL

THELASTING MARRIAGE OF DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 351

REASONS FORA DIVORCE

POLMCAL June1997 THEORY/

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION353

/ June1997 POLITICAL THEORY

THEANTIDEMOCRATIC APPEALOF DELIBERATION

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION355

. private concerns."Citizens aren't capable of

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION357

THEORY/ June1997 POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION359

DELIBERATION FOR EVERYONE

/ June1997 THEORY POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION361

THEORY / June1997 POLITICAL

THEPOSSIBILITIES FOR DELIBERATION IN THE UNITEDSTATES

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION363

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

women,men were chosento headjuries nearly90 percentof the time.

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION367

/June1997 THEORY POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION369

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 371

THEORY/June 1997 POLITICAL

Sanders / AGAINST DELIBERATION373

/ June1997 POLITICAL THEORY

DELIBERATION375 Sanders / AGAINST

Press. NewYork: Oxford women. University

1981.Thepeople's twobodies. 1(1):9-24. democracy Wolin, Sheldon.

POLITICAL THEORY/ June 1997

También podría gustarte