Res Publica 8 (3):249-268 (2002)

Authors
Abstract
Deliberative or discursive models of democracy have recently enjoyed a revival in both political theory and policy practice. Against the picture of democracy as a procedure for aggregating and effectively meeting the given preference of individuals, deliberative theory offers a model of democracy as a forum through which judgements and preferences are formed and altered through reasoned dialogue between free and equal citizens. Much in the recent revival of deliberative democracy, especially that which comes through Habermas and Rawls, has Kantian roots. Deliberative institutions are embodiments of the free public use of reason that Kant takes to define the enlightenment project. Within the Kantian model the public use of reason is incompatible with the use of rhetoric. While this paper rejects strong rhetorical criticisms of deliberative democracy which render all communication strategic, it argues that rhetorical studies of deliberation have highlighted features of deliberation which point to significant weaknesses in Kantian approaches to it. Two features are of particular importance: the role of testimony and judgements of credibility in deliberation; and the role of appeal to emotions in public discourse. Both from the Kantian perspective are potential sources of heteronomy. However, the appeal to testimony and emotion are features of public deliberation that cannot and should not be eliminated. For those committed to the enlightenment values that underlie the deliberative model of democracy the question is whether these rhetorical features of deliberation are incompatible with those values. The paper argues that they are compatible. It does so by defending an Aristotelian account of rhetoric in public deliberation which denies the Platonic contrast between reasoned discourse and rhetoric which the Kantian model inherits.
Keywords Aristotle  deliberative democracy  emotion  Kant  rhetoric  testimony
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1020899224058
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 55,981
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation.John S. Dryzek - 2010 - Political Theory 38 (3):319-339.
Emotional Appeals in Politics and Deliberation.Keith Dowding - 2018 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21 (2):242-260.
Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Tacit Knowledge.Jonathan Benson - 2019 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 18 (1):76-97.
Reflective Judgment and Enlarged Thinking Online.May Thorseth - 2008 - Ethics and Information Technology 10 (4):221-231.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Critique of Pragmatism and Deliberative Democracy.Thom Brooks - 2009 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 45 (1):pp. 50-54.
Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience.William Smith - 2004 - Res Publica 10 (4):353-377.
Why Deliberative Democracy is (Still) Untenable.Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij - 2012 - Public Affairs Quarterly 26 (3):199-220.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
87 ( #113,394 of 2,403,582 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #156,166 of 2,403,582 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes