Whose Power? Which Rationality?
| Abstract | In “Deliberation Down and Dirty,” David Estlund seeks a deeper understanding of that most American of political paradoxes: regulated free speech. To that end, he sketches a normative basis for an intuitively appealing idea. The idea is: the boundaries of civility in political expression are proportional to power’s interference with reason. That is, the more that power undermines the conditions of free and orderly political expression, the wider the scope of what should count as “civil” expression, including perhaps even violence. Estlund explicates his account with three important claims. First, democratic deliberation fosters what he calls the “social discovery of truth.” The epistemic value of such deliberation is the primary rationale for narrow norms of civility, since sharp political expression would be counter-productive in circumstances of ideal deliberation. Second, when the conditions of democratic deliberation are undermined in specific ways, the scope of civility widens. Estlund calls this a “breakdown” account of civility: when open deliberation breaks down (though this is, Estlund realizes, a matter of degree), formerly uncivil measures become civil. Third, permissible sharp expression should aim to restore the conditions of narrow civility. Sharp expression when civil is thus remedial, since it must aim to recreate the circumstances of free and open deliberation. These three claims form the heart of Estlund’s account of civil expression, and I would like to explore each of them in turn | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesTomis Kapitan (1986). Deliberation and the Presumption of Open Alternatives. Southern Journal of Philosophy 40 (April):230-51.
Cheryl Ann Hall (2007). Recognizing the Passion in Deliberation: Toward a More Democratic Theory of Deliberative Democracy. Hypatia 22 (4):81-95.
May Thorseth (2006). Worldwide Deliberation and Public Use of Reason Online. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4).
Jennifer M. Morton (2011). Toward an Ecological Theory of the Norms of Practical Deliberation. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):561-584.
William Smith (2004). Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience. Res Publica 10 (4).
Elizabeth Anderson (2008). An Epistemic Defense of Democracy: David Estlund's Democratic Authority. Episteme 5 (1):pp. 129-139.
William A. Edmundson (2002). Civility as Political Constraint. Res Publica 8 (3).
Stefan Rummens (2008). Deliberation Interrupted: Confronting Jürgen Habermas with Claude Lefort. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (4):383-408.
Archon Fung (2005). Deliberation Before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World. Political Theory 33 (3):397 - 419.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-11-28Total downloads14 ( #83,077 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
