Abstract
Identity claims are a common feature of political debate in many Western democracies. Cultural, linguistic, and religious minorities often defend or attack particular political proposals by appealing to the effect the proposal will have on their group's identity. Is this form of reasoning compatible with the normative ideal of deliberative democracy? This article examines and refutes two powerful arguments recently advanced in the literature which suggest the answer is no. First, there is the public reason objection, which holds that identity claims do not meet the standards of reciprocal moral dialogue. Second, there is a compossibility objection, which asserts that identity claims cannot be simultaneously realized. This would force us into the undesirable position of having to disrespect deliberative participants, instead of merely disagreeing with them. Both objections are shown to be mistaken. Identity claims, it is argued, can be good deliberative reasons like any other. The article concludes by suggesting several tests identity claims must pass in order to meet the standards of deliberative reciprocity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2001 meeting of the American Political Science Association, the 2002 meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, the Nuffield Political Theory Workshop, and the Graduate Political Theory Workshop at Oxford. I am particularly grateful to Andrew Hurrell, David Miller, Micah Schwartzman, Rebecca Stone, Richard Vernon, and the referees for Contemporary Political Theory for their comments. I would also like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for providing funding.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Quong, J. Are Identity Claims Bad for Deliberative Democracy?. Contemp Polit Theory 1, 307–327 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300053
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300053