Search

Some conflicts between people are intractable. This means that they are difficult or impossible to solve, and carry the risk of serious escalation. There are situations in which this intractability can only be understood well in relation to needs and/or values that those involved consider essential to who they. I refer to these as “identity-related moral conflicts” (IRMC). A person’s identity is not subject to negotiation. Therefore, the question arises: How can a stable and just solution be conceived for such conflicts? Several influential philosophical theories, such as Rawls's Political Liberalism, Habermas's Discourse Ethics and Taylor's Articulation Ethics, fail to discern a stable and just solution to such conflicts. The solutions these theories foresee are possible only when conditions are met - conditions that are not met in an IRMC. My proposal to distinguish a just and stable solution is by combining the strengths of Discourse Ethics and the Articulation Ethics so that they can compensate for each other's weakness. This leads to a theory of the Transformative Dialogue with which stable and just solutions of IRMCs can be worked out. The core of this theory is that authenticity should be understood not individually but intersubjectively. In other words, what is authentic to someone is determined in simultaneous, mutual relationships of recognition that are constituted by a Transformative Dialogue. The Transformative Dialogue refers to the process in which parties in an IRMC transform their self-understanding and their understanding of the other in such a way that a relationship of mutual recognition emerges. The intractable conflict is thereby resolved in a stable and just manner. To be able to solve intractable conflicts in practice, it is necessary to make the Transformative Dialogue part of institutions so that a transformative-deliberative society arises in which the transformation of self-understanding is as common as the exchange of factual arguments or negotiation.

Some conflicts between people are intractable. This means that they are difficult or impossible to solve, and carry the risk of serious escalation. There are situations in which this intractability can only be understood well in relation to needs and/or values that those involved consider essential to who they. I refer to these as “identity-related moral conflicts” (IRMC). A person’s identity is not subject to negotiation. Therefore, the question arises: How can a stable and just solution be conceived for such conflicts? Several influential philosophical theories, such as Rawls's Political Liberalism, Habermas's Discourse Ethics and Taylor's Articulation Ethics, fail to discern a stable and just solution to such conflicts. The solutions these theories foresee are possible only when conditions are met - conditions that are not met in an IRMC. My proposal to distinguish a just and stable solution is by combining the strengths of Discourse Ethics and the Articulation Ethics so that they can compensate for each other's weakness. This leads to a theory of the Transformative Dialogue with which stable and just solutions of IRMCs can be worked out. The core of this theory is that authenticity should be understood not individually but intersubjectively. In other words, what is authentic to someone is determined in simultaneous, mutual relationships of recognition that are constituted by a Transformative Dialogue. The Transformative Dialogue refers to the process in which parties in an IRMC transform their self-understanding and their understanding of the other in such a way that a relationship of mutual recognition emerges. The intractable conflict is thereby resolved in a stable and just manner. To be able to solve intractable conflicts in practice, it is necessary to make the Transformative Dialogue part of institutions so that a transformative-deliberative society arises in which the transformation of self-understanding is as common as the exchange of factual arguments or negotiation.

This study aimed to describe and analyze the work on values withing the adult education of the correctional service by gathering teachers’ and supervisors’ experiences of how and why they work with values that should characterize adult education. This has been done through an analysis of their experiences based on deliberative democratic theory and deliberative dialouge to identify challenges and opportunities in their professional practice. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured approach with a phenomenographic approach, leading to the following conclusions: Teachers and supervisors face the daily challenge of interpreting and integrating the values in a way that includes all students with different cultural backgrounds and values. Finding a balance between promoting equality and respecting different perspectives can be difficult to achieve. Integrating the values can be challenging when students’ behaviors do not align with the expected values, making it difficult to transfer the values to practical situations and to get students to reflect on their actions and consequenses. This requires long-term and continuous work to challenge and reshape students’ values and attitudes. However, with deliberation as a teaching method, teachers and supervisors can promote understanding, reflection, and dialouge regarding the values. By actively creating a respectful environment, students can be encouraged to express their opinions and reflect on their values, leading to increased awareness and understanding of the values. This includes approaches such as clear communication of rules and goals emphazising the values, individual conversations, and active intervention in cases of abusive treatment, where teachers and supervisors can demonstrate what is acceptable and unacceptable to create a respectful and inclusive environment.

Les democràcies s’han definit com els sistemes polítics que millor han sabut conjugar un nivell de consens sobre un ordre social determinat, amb una capacitat de dissens que garantís el pluralisme d’aquestes. En aquest article es farà una relectura crítica d’algunes de les principals corrents democràtiques davant aquest complicat equilibri: des dels postulats clássics de liberals i republicans, a les teories antagonistes de segona meitat del segle XX. Aquesta discussió es troba avui enfront d’un nou repte per l’emergència de l’anomenat «moment populista», i la possibilitat que el dissens associat a ell desborda els consensos democràtics vigents. En aquest sentit, es realitzarà una aproximació a la relació entre democràcia i populisme des d’enfocaments postestructuralistes com el de Benjamin Arditi, per a intentar repensar la relació entre ambdues, entenent el populisme com a perifèria difusa de la democràcia., Democracies have been seen as the political systems that have best managed to combine a certain level of consensus on a given social order with a level of dissent that guarantees their own pluralism. In this article we will review the positions of some of the main democratic movements in relation to this complicated balance: from the classics postulates of liberals and republicans, to the antagonistic theories of the second half of XX century. This issue is currently facing a new challenge due to the emergence of the so-called «populist moment», and the possibility that the dissent associated with it may overflow the current democratic consensuses. As a result, we will look at the relationship between democracy and populism from post-structuralist approaches such as that of Benjamin Arditi, in an attempt to rethink the relationship between both, understanding populism as a diffuse periphery of democracy., Las democracias se han definido como los sistemas políticos que mejor han sabido conjugar un nivel de consenso sobre un orden social determinado, con una capacidad de disenso que garantizase el pluralismo de las mismas. En este artículo se hará una relectura crítica de algunas de las principales corrientes democráticas ante este complicado equilibrio: desde los postulados clásicos de liberales y republicanos, a las teorías antagonistas de segunda mitad del siglo XX. Esta discusión se encuentra hoy frente a un nuevo reto por la emergencia del llamado «momento populista», y la posibilidad de que el disenso asociado a él desborde los consensos democráticos vigentes. En este sentido, se realizará una aproximación a la relación entre democracia y populismo desde enfoques postestructuralistas como el de Benjamin Arditi, para intentar repensar la relación entre ambas, entendiendo el populismo como periferia difusa de la democracia.

High-quality news is important, not only for its own sake but also for its political implications. However, defining, operationalizing, and measuring news media quality is difficult, because evaluative criteria depend upon beliefs about the ideal society, which are inherently contested. This conceptual and methodological paper outlines important considerations for defining news media quality before developing and applying a multimethod approach to measure it. We refer to Giddens' notion of double hermeneutics, which reveals that the ways social scientists understand constructs inevitably interact with the meanings of these constructs shared by people in society. Reflecting the two-way relationship between society and social sciences enables us to recognize news media quality as a dynamic, contingent, and contested construct and, at the same time, to reason our understanding of news media quality, which we derive from Habermas' ideal of deliberative democracy. Moreover, we investigate the Swiss media system to showcase our measurement approach in a repeated data collection from 2017 to 2020. We assess the content quality of fifty news media outlets using four criteria derived from the deliberative ideal ( N = 20,931 and 18,559 news articles and broadcasting items, respectively) and compare the results with those from two representative online surveys ( N = 2,169 and 2,159 respondents). The high correlations between both methods show that a deliberative understanding of news media quality is anchored in Swiss society and shared by audiences. This paper shall serve as a showcase to reflect and measure news media quality across other countries and media systems.

It is seemingly accepted that a democracy functions better with a reasonably informed citizenry. As we cannot acquire knowledge about a complex reality on our own, democratic societies operate through a set of institutions of which two are attributed the explicit task to assist citizensa legitimate pathway to knowledge. These institutions include news media and science. Evidence from recent years indicates that more and more elected politicians across the democratic world engage in attacks towards these institutions, with the deliberate aim to undermine their legitimacy. Because the functionality of news media and science essentially relies on their legitimacy, this trend has raised societal concerns in parallel with scholarly interest. While recent research has made important contributions to better understand political attacks towards institutional knowledge providers, several dimensions are still understudied. This thesis addresses such dimensions. Using quantitative content analysis, the research conducted in this thesis explores prevalence, party distribution and expressions of delegitimizing criticism (characterized by a presence of incivility and/or absence of reasoning) towards news media and science(conceptualized as epistemic authorities) among tweeting Members of Parliament (MP) in Sweden. The study analyzes single tweets by all Swedish MPs represented in the national parliament (and on Twitter) over a one-year study period (31st of October 2020 - 31st of October 2021) (N = 1828). Results from the exploration show that Swedish politicians engage in delegitimizing evaluations of epistemic authorities in a small and concentrated scale. Findings are several; Swedish politicians are remarkably more hostile towards the news media than towards science;one party affiliation contribute to more than half of all delegitimizing evaluations; delegitimizing criticism takes on several expressive forms but addresses to a large extent dimensions surrounding poor quality and partiality. The conducted study contributes to research about political hostility towards institutional knowledge providers in empirical and theoretical regards and provide entrances for further discoveries. A special request for futureresearch is to engage in more in-depth and detailed assessments of dimensions having been explored, for example by mixing in qualitative methods.

Tarkastelemme artikkelissa demokratiakasvatusta analysoimalla peruskoulun ja lukion opetussuunnitelmien perusteita sekä yhteiskuntaopin oppimateriaaleja demokratiateoreettisen keskustelun näkökulmasta. Oletuksenamme on deliberatiivisten eli keskustelua ja harkintaa korostavien demokratian ihanteiden tarpeellisuus opetuksessa. Joitakin niiden piirteistä on kuitenkin teoriakeskustelussa voimakkaasti haastettu. Etenkin on arvosteltu konsensushakuisen argumentaation ylikorostumista sekä ristiriitojen ja tunteiden sivuuttamista. Sovellamme kritiikkiä suomalaiseen demokratiakasvatukseen analysoiden opetussuunnitelmia ja oppimateriaaleja, ja kysymme, osuuko kritiikki myös niiden demokratiakäsityksiin. Analyysimme osoittaa, että aineistossa vallitsee näkemys rakentavan keskustelun tärkeydestä demokratiakasvatuksessa. Poliittisen kommunikaation muotoja ei kuitenkaan supisteta vain rationaaliseen argumentaatioon. Arvoristiriidat ja yhteiskunnalliset jännitteet esitetään keskeisiksi poliittisiksi ilmiöiksi, joskin niiden merkitystä käsitellään pinnallisesti. Poliittisia tunteita ei sen sijaan mainita opetussuunnitelmissa lainkaan, ja oppikirjoissa tunteiden ja yhteiskunnallisten teemojen yhteyteen viitataan vain satunnaisesti. Lopuksi pohdimme demokratiakasvatuksen näkymiä havaintojen pohjalta., This article looks at education for democracy by analyzing the Finnish primary and secondary school core curricula and social studies textbooks from the perspective of discussions on democratic theory. We presume that the deliberative ideals of discussion and reflection are valuable in democratic education. However, some of their features have been strongly challenged in the theoretical discussion. In particular, the overemphasis of consensus-aiming argumentation and the disregard for contradictions and feelings have been criticized. We apply these critical points of view to education by analyzing curricula and study materials, asking whether criticism also pertains to their depictions of democracy. Our analysis shows a prevailing conception of the importance of constructive discussion in democratic education. However, the forms of political communication are not reduced to rational argumentation alone. Value conflicts ​​and social tensions are presented as basic political phenomena, although their significance is discussed only superficially. On the other hand, political emotions are not mentioned at all in the curricula, and textbooks rarely refer to the emotional aspects of social issues. Finally, we consider the prospects of democratic education based on our observations.

Resumo A controvérsia envolvendo a suposta incompatibilidade entre a democracia deliberativa e o conflito tem sido mobilizada para negar as potencialidades dessa vertente. Para reforçar a inexistência dessa dicotomia, partimos da reconstituição de um processo político e buscamos compreender como o conflito contribui para a emergência da deliberação, e, ao mesmo tempo, como a deliberação e a reflexividade são capazes de desencadear o conflito. Nossa análise se debruça sobre o conflito ambiental envolvendo a definição do futuro da Serra do Gandarela, foco de interesses diversos por parte de grupos mineradores, movimento social e população local. A partir de entrevistas com os atores envolvidos, reconstituímos o processo de disputa sobre o futuro da Serra, tendo em mente os diferentes momentos que o compõem. Apontamos como o conflito se manifesta neste contexto e como contribui para a emergência do debate público, a reflexividade dos envolvidos e, em alguma medida, na tomada de decisões sobre a controvérsia. Apontamos ainda o papel-chave desempenhado pela sociedade civil na costura discursiva do processo, além de chamarmos a ateção para a ação de atores do sistema de justiça como conectores potenciais do sistema deliberativo. Abstract The controversy surrounding the supposed incompatibility between deliberative democracy and conflict has been mobilized to deny the potentialities of this theoretical field. To reinforce the inexistence of this dichotomy, we begin from the reconstitution of a political process and seek to understand how conflict contributes to deliberation emergence and, at the same time, how deliberation and reflexivity are capable of triggering this conflict. Our analysis focuses on the environmental conflict involving the definition of the future of Serra do Gandarela, the focus of diverse interests by mining groups, the social movement, and the local population. We reconstructed the dispute process concerning the future of Gandarela from interviews with the involved actors, bearing its different moments in mind. We point out how the conflict manifests itself in this context and how it contributes to the emergence of public debate, to the reflexivity of those involved and, to some extent, in decision-making regarding the controversy. We also point out the key role played by civil society in the discursive binding of the process, while also highlighting justice system actor actions as possible deliberative system connectors. Resumé La controverse qui entoure la prétendue incompatibilité entre la démocratie délibérative et le conflit a été mise en avant pour nier les potentialités de ce versant. Pour renforcer l’inexistence de cette dichotomie, ce travail part de la reconstitution d’un processus politique afin de comprendre comment le conflit contribue à l’émergence de la délibération, et comment la délibération et la réflexivité peuvent déclencher le conflit. L’analyse porte sur le conflit environnemental qui entoure la définition de l’avenir de la Serra do Gandarela, objet de divergence entre des compagnies minières, un mouvement social et la population locale. À partir d’entretiens des acteurs impliqués, le processus de dispute sur l’avenir de la Serra est reconstitué en tenant compte des différents moments qui le composent. L’objectif est de montrer de quelle manière se manifeste le conflit dans ce contexte ainsi que sa contribution à l’émergence du débat public, à la réflexivité et, dans une certaine mesure, à la prise de décisions sur la controverse. Enfin, le travail souligne le rôle clé de la société civile dans le tissu discursif du processus et celui des agents du système de justice en tant que connecteurs potentiels du système délibératif.

Submitted by Boris Flegr (boris@uerj.br) on 2021-01-06T20:43:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 tese Silvia Macedo.pdf: 1513434 bytes, checksum: cb857036f3c6ad1c73586374a71345cb (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2021-01-06T20:43:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tese Silvia Macedo.pdf: 1513434 bytes, checksum: cb857036f3c6ad1c73586374a71345cb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-06-14 This paper seeks information on the public hearings of the Chamber of Deputies from the point of view of deliberative theory. That is, it seeks to verify whether hearings are instruments used by deputies to make their decisions based on the best justifications. But the political game based on pure and simple bargaining will not be left out. One of the premisses of the study is that explanations based on the new institutionalism of rational choice, which works with agents motivated by fixed preferences within restrictive institutional rules, explain part of the political results. Deliberative theory, as a critical theory, would enter to indicate institutional designs more favorable to democracy. A database was prepared with information on all the public hearings of the standing committees held in the years 2005, 2009 and 2013. From this bank, it was possible to withdraw, for example, that the segments of society (invited to the hearings) are well distributed over the years; although there is a preponderance of executive authorities. The main motivation for the hearings is precisely the supervision of this power. An analysis of two topics discussed in public hearings was also carried out during the period chosen: student half-admission and pre-salt exploration, in order to verify the quality of the discussion from the point of view of deliberative theory. The results show that about 20% of the topics discussed in hearings are relative to projects in process; which reduces the deliberative character of the discussion. The partisan strand of the new institutionalism better explains the use of hearings as part of the struggle between government and opposition. The debates analyzed show deliberative characteristics such as the use of several arguments in the defense of positions and the call for agreement attempts; but there is ample scope for improving the quality of the discussion. Este trabalho busca informações sobre as audiências públicas da Câmara dos Deputados sob o ponto de vista da teoria deliberativa. Ou seja, pretende verificar se as audiências são instrumentos utilizados pelos deputados para tomar suas decisões com base nas melhores justificativas. Mas o jogo político baseado na barganha pura e simples não será deixado de lado. Uma das premissas do estudo é a de que as explicações baseadas no novo institucionalismo da escolha racional, que trabalha com agentes motivados por preferências fixas dentro de regras institucionais restritivas, explicam parte dos resultados políticos. A teoria deliberativa, como uma teoria crítica, entraria para indicar desenhos institucionais mais favoráveis à democracia. Foi elaborado um banco de dados com informações sobre todas as audiências públicas das comissões permanentes realizadas nos anos de 2005, 2009 e 2013. Deste banco, foi possível retirar, por exemplo, que os segmentos da sociedade (convidados para as audiências) estão bem distribuídos ao longo dos anos; embora exista uma preponderância de autoridades do poder Executivo. A motivação principal para as audiências é justamente a fiscalização deste poder. Também foi realizada uma análise de dois temas debatidos em audiências públicas no período escolhido: meia-entrada para estudantes e exploração do pré-sal, com o objetivo de verificar a qualidade da discussão sob a ótica da teoria deliberativa. Os resultados mostram que cerca de 20% dos temas discutidos em audiências é relativa a projetos em tramitação; o que reduz o caráter deliberativo da discussão. A vertente partidária do novo institucionalismo explica melhor o uso das audiências como parte da briga entre governo e oposição. Os debates analisados mostram características deliberativas como o uso de vários argumentos na defesa de posições e o apelo a tentativas de acordo; mas existe um amplo espaço para a melhoria da qualidade da discussão.

I examine three different ways in which the ideals of deliberative democracy have changed in the light of practical concerns about its viability. have changed in the light of practical concerns about its viability, i.e., making increasingly important the problem of how this ideal can approach societies characterized by deep disagreements, social problems of enormous complexity and inoperative instruments in their existing institutions. (1) Theories of deliberative democracy emphasize the process of deliberation rather than its ideal conditions and procedures. (2) Deliberative democrats are increasingly interested in the problems of institutionalization, in making voting, majority rule and representation more deliberative institutions. (3) Deliberativists examine the different scenarios and procedures of deliberation, pointing out obstacles that cannot always be anticipated by resorting only to conceptual arguments, Examino tres maneras diferentes como los ideales de la democracia deliberativa han cambiado a la luz de las preocupaciones prácticas sobre su viabilidad, es decir, haciendo cada vez más importante el problema de cómo este ideal puede acercarse a sociedades caracterizadas por profundos desacuerdos, problemas sociales de enorme complejidad e instrumentos inoperantes en sus instituciones existentes. (1) Las teorías de la democracia deliberativa enfatizan el proceso de la deliberación y no sus condiciones y procedimientos ideales. (2) Los demócratas deliberativos se interesan cada vez más en los problemas de la institucionalización, en hacer del voto, la regla de mayorías y la representación, instituciones más deliberativas. (3) Los deliberativistas examinan los diferentes escenarios y procedimientos de la deliberación, señalando obstáculos que no siempre pueden anticiparse al recurrir únicamente a argumentos conceptuales

Neste artigo, proponho-me a tecer consideracoes sobre o debate central que caracteriza a teoria democratica contemporânea, trabalhando, de um lado, com o minimalismo schumpeteriano e, do outro, com uma de suas teorias rivais, a teoria deliberativa. Parto do principio de que, por meio das lentes do minimalismo, a democracia e vista como mercado; pondo as lentes da teoria deliberativa, como forum. E, valendo-me dessas abstracoes, faco da figura bidimensional dahlsiana, originalmente composta pelos eixos competicao (y) e participacao (x), uma figura agora formada pelos eixos mercado (y) e forum (x). A analogia visa a destacar os pontos cruciais das teorias abordadas, de algum modo tornando mais apreensivel a complexa – e confusa – rede de discussoes que circundam o tema. Terminada a exposicao, concluo ser possivel pensar o debate na moderna teoria democratica como devendo ser direcionado, simultaneamente, tanto a visao minimalista quanto a deliberativa – ao mercado e ao forum –, porque a interpretacao da democracia como mercado nao exclui sua interpretacao como forum, assim como a competicao, em Dahl, nao exclui a participacao, ainda que ambas possam variar independentemente. DEMOCRACY’S MASKS: NOTES ON CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRATIC THEORY IN LIGHT OF DAHL’S AXES Abstract In this article, I propose to develop some considerations on the central debate that characterizes contemporary democratic theory, working on the one hand, with Schumpeterian minimalism, and on the other, with one of his rivals, deliberative theory. I start from the premise that, through the lenses of minimalism, democracy appears as a market; through the lenses of deliberative theory, it appears as a forum. Using these abstractions, I go on to bi-dimensional figure that Dahl proposes, originally made up of two axes: competition (y) and participation (x), and now composed by the axes of market (y) and forum (x). The analogy is meant to bring out the crucial points in the theories dealt with, in the attempt to facilitate aprehension of the complex – and often confusing – web of discussions that surround the issue. I finish with the conclusion that it is possible to think of the debate within modern democractic theory as needing to focus, simultaneously, on both the minimalist and the deliberative viewpoints – market and forum – because the interpretation of democracy as market dos not exclude its interpretation as forum, just as competition, in Dahl, does not exclude participation, although both may vary independently. LES MASQUES DE LA DEMOCRATIE : NOTES SUR LA THEORIE DEMOCRATIQUE CONTEMPORAINE A LA LUMIERE DES AXES DAHLSIENS Resume Dans cet article, je me propose de reflechir sur le debat central qui caracterise la theorie democratique contemporaine, en travaillant, d’un cote, sur le minimalisme schumpeterien et, de l’autre, sur l’une de ses theories rivales, la theorie deliberative. Je pars du principe qu’a travers l’optique de la theorie deliberative, la democratie est vue comme un marche ; en mettant les verres optiques de la theorie deliberative, comme un forum. En m’appuyant sur ces abstractions, je transforme la figure bidimensionnelle dahlsienne, au debut composee des axes competition (y) et participation (x), en une figure maintenant formee des axes marche (y) et forum (x). L’analogie a pour but de mettre en relief les points essentiels des theories abordees, en rendant plus accessible le complexe – et confus - reseau de discussion entourant ce theme. Fini l’expose, la conclusion se fonde sur la possibilite de reflechir sur le debat de la moderne theorie democratique en utilisant non seulement la vision minimaliste mais aussi la vision deliberative – marche et forum - , car l’interpretation de la democratie comme un marche ne supprime pas son interpretation comme un forum, ainsi que la competition, chez Dahl, n’elimine pas la participation, bien que toutes deux puissent varier independamment.

A supremacia judicial pode ser caracterizada como a doutrina que fundamenta a possibilidade da suprema corte dizer, de acordo com a sua visão do texto constitucional, o que a lei é de forma conclusiva. Este trabalho parte do pressuposto de que a teoria da democracia deliberativa, ao postular um modelo de sociedade descentralizado e construído intersubjetivamente por meio de uma discussão aberta entre os distintos atores político-sociais, pode também ser utilizada como uma tese crítica à supremacia judicial. Assim, utilizando-se dos estudos de Gargarella, o presente artigo buscará, com base na visão de democracia deliberativa do autor, demonstrar que a supremacia judicial é prejudicial à democracia, na medida em que retira dos cidadãos a decisão final dos temas sociais mais importantes e os transfere para um poder político supremo. The judicial supremacy can be characterized as the doctrine that underlies the possibility of the supreme court to say, according with its vision of the constitutional text, what the law is conclusively. This paper assumes that the theory of deliberative democracy, by to postulating a decentralized model of society, constructed intersubjectively through an open discussion among the various political and social actors, can also be used as a critical theory to judicial supremacy. Thus, using the Gargarella studies this article will look, based on his vision of deliberative democracy to demonstrate that judicial supremacy is harmful to democracy, because the it removes citizens from the final decision of most important social issues, and transfers them to a supreme political power.