DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge Introduction James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge Democracy is under siege. Approval ratings for democratic institutions in most countries around the world are at near-record lows. The number of rec- ognized democratic countries in the world is no lon- ger expanding after the so-called Third Wave of dem- ocratic transitions.1 Indeed, there is something of a “democratic recession.”2 Further, some apparently democratic countries with competitive elections are undermining elements of liberal democracy: the rights and liberties that ensure freedom of thought and ex- pression, protection of the rule of law, and all the pro- tections for the substructure of civil society that may be as important for making democracy work as the JAMES S. FISHKIN, a Fellow of the electoral process itself.3 The model of party compe- American Academy since 2014, is tition-based democracy–the principal model of de- Director of the Center for Delib- mocracy in the modern era–seems under threat. erative Democracy, the Janet M. That model also has competition. What might be Peck Chair in International Com- munication, Professor of Commu- called “meritocratic authoritarianism,” a model in nication, and Professor of Political which regimes with flawed democratic processes nev- Science (by courtesy) at Stanford ertheless provide good governance, is attracting at- University. tention and some support. Singapore is the only suc- JANE MANSBRIDGE, a Fellow of cessful extant example, although some suggest China the American Academy since 1994, as another nation moving in this direction. Singapore is the Charles F. Adams Professor is not a Western-style party- and competition-based of Political Leadership and Dem- democracy, but it is well-known for its competent civil ocratic Values at the Harvard Ken- servants schooled in making decisions on a cost-ben- nedy School. efit basis to solve public problems, with the goals set (*See endnotes for complete contributor by elite consultation with input from elections rath- biographies.) er than by party competition. © 2017 by James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge doi:10.1162/DAED_ x_00442 6 Public discontent makes further difficul- Over the last two decades, another ap- James S. ties for the competitive model. Democra- proach to democracy has become increas- Fishkin & Jane cies around the world struggle with the ap- ingly prominent. Based on greater deliber- Mansbridge parent gulf between political elites who are ation among the public and its represen- widely distrusted and mobilized citizens tatives, deliberative democracy has the who fuel populism with the energy of an- potential, at least in theory, to respond gry voices. Disillusioned citizens turning to today’s current challenges. If the many against elites have produced unexpected versions of a more deliberative democracy election results, including the Brexit deci- live up to their aspirations, they could help sion and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. revive democratic legitimacy, provide for The competitive elections and referenda more authentic public will formation, pro- of most current democracies depend on vide a middle ground between widely mis- mobilizing millions of voters within a con- trusted elites and the angry voices of pop- text of advertising, social media, and efforts ulism, and help fulfill some of our common to manipulate as well as inform public opin- normative expectations about democracy. ion. Competing teams want to win and, in Can this potential be realized? In what most cases, are interested in informing vot- ways and to what extent? Deliberative de- ers only when it is to their advantage. The mocracy has created a rich literature in both rationale for competitive democracy, most theory and practice. This issue of Dædalus influentially developed by the late econo- assesses both its prospects and limits. We mist Joseph Schumpeter, held that the same include advocates as well as critics. As de- techniques of advertising used in the com- liberative democrats, our aim is to stimu- mercial sphere to get people to buy prod- late public deliberation about deliberative ucts can be expected in the political sphere. democracy, weighing arguments for and On this view, we should not expect a “gen- against its application in different contexts uine” public will, but rather “a manufac- and for different purposes. tured will” that is just a by-product of po- How can deliberative democracy, if it litical competition.4 were to work as envisaged by its supporters, Yet the ideal of democracy as the rule of respond to the challenges just sketched? “the people” is deeply undermined when First, if the more-deliberative institutions the will of the people is in large part manu- that many advocate can be applied to real factured. The legitimacy of democracy de- decisions in actual ongoing democracies, pends on some real link between the public arguably they could have a positive effect on will and the public policies and office-hold- legitimacy and lead to better governance. ers who are selected. Although some have They could make a better connection be- criticized this “folk theory of democracy” tween the public’s real concerns and how as empirically naive, its very status as a folk they are governed. Second, these institu- theory reflects how widespread this nor- tions could help fill the gap between dis- mative expectation is.5 To the extent that trusted elites and angry populists. Elites leaders manufacture the public will, the are distrusted in part because they seem normative causal arrow goes in the wrong and often are unresponsive to the public’s direction. If current democracies cannot concerns, hopes, and values. Perhaps, the produce meaningful processes of public suspicion arises, the elites are really out will formation, the legitimacy claims of for themselves. On the other hand, pop- meritocratic autocracies or even more ulism stirs up angry, mostly nondelibera- fully autocratic systems become compar- tive voices that can be mobilized in plebes- atively stronger.6 citary campaigns, whether for Brexit or for 146 (3) Summer 2017 7 Introduction elected office. In their contributions to this These are some of the challenges facing issue, both Claus Offe and Hélène Lande- those who might try to make deliberative more explore the crisis of legitimacy in democracy practical. representative government, including the The earliest work on deliberative democ- clash between status quo–oriented elites racy began by investigating legislatures.7 In and populism. Deliberative democratic this issue, Cass Sunstein, in contrast, looks methods open up the prospect of prescrip- at deliberation among policy-makers with- tions that are both representative of the in the executive branch. Bernard Manin entire population and based on sober, evi- looks outside government toward debates dence-based analysis of the merits of com- and public forums that can improve the de- peting arguments. Popular deliberative in- liberative quality of campaigns and discus- stitutions are grounded in the public’s val- sions among the public at large. ues and concerns, so the voice they magnify Much of the energy in deliberative de- is not the voice of the elites. But that voice mocracy efforts has focused on statisti- is usually also, after deliberation, more ev- cal microcosms or mini-publics, in which idence-based and reflective of the merits of citizens, usually recruited by random sam- the major policy arguments. Hence these pling, deliberate in organized settings. In institutions fill an important gap. some settings, relatively small groups of fif- How might popular deliberative democ- teen or so deliberate online with an elect- racy, if it were to work as envisaged by its ed representative.8 In other settings, the supporters, fulfill normative expectations groups can be given access to balanced of democracy, thought to be unrealistic information and briefing materials that by critics of the “folk theory”? The issue make the best case for and against various turns on the empirical possibility that the options. They can also be given access to public can actually deliberate. Can the peo- competing experts who answer their ques- ple weigh the trade-offs? Can they assess tions from different points of view. Then, competing arguments? Can they connect at the end of the deliberations in these or- their deliberations with their voting pref- ganized settings, there is some way of har- erences or other expressions of preference vesting their considered judgments. Sever- about what should be done? Is the problem al of the essays discuss Deliberative Polling, that the people are not competent, or that which brings together a random sample of they are not in the right institutional con- citizens for a weekend of deliberation and text to be effectively motivated to partici- gathers data, as in an opinion poll, from pate? These are empirical questions, and the random samples both upon recruit- the controversies about them are part of ment and then again at the end of the de- our dialogue. liberations. The method also permits qual- itative data by recording the discussions, This issue includes varying definitions, both in moderated small groups and in ple- approaches, and contexts. The root notion nary sessions where questions generated in is that deliberation requires “weighing” the small groups are directed at experts rep- competing arguments for policies or candi- resenting different points of view. Other dates in a context of mutually civil and di- mini-publics, such as “citizens’ juries” verse discussion in which people can decide and “consensus conferences,” are usually on the merits of arguments with good in- smaller (a couple of dozen instead of two or formation. Is such a thing possible in an era three hundred people) and arrive at some- of fake news, social media, and public dis- thing like an agreed-upon statement or ver- cussions largely among the like-minded? dict as a recommendation to the public or 8 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences to authorized policy-makers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z
    The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z. O’Brien In recent years a growing number of countries have established quotas to increase the representation of women and minorities in electoral politics. Policies for women exist in more than one hundred countries. Individual political parties have adopted many of these provisions, but more than half involve legal or constitutional reforms requiring that all parties select a certain proportion of female candidates.1 Policies for minorities are present in more than thirty countries.2 These measures typically set aside seats that other groups are ineligible to contest. Despite parallels in their forms and goals, empirical studies on quotas for each group have developed largely in iso- lation from one another. The absence of comparative analysis is striking, given that many normative arguments address women and minorities together. Further, scholars often generalize from the experiences of one group to make claims about the other. The intuition behind these analogies is that women and minorities have been similarly excluded based on ascriptive characteristics like sex and ethnicity. Concerned that these dynamics undermine basic democratic values of inclusion, many argue that the participation of these groups should be actively promoted as a means to reverse these historical trends. This article examines these assumptions to explore their leverage in explaining the quota policies implemented in national parliaments around the world. It begins by out- lining three normative arguments to justify such measures, which are transformed into three hypotheses for empirical investigation: (1) both women and minorities will re- ceive representational guarantees, (2) women or minorities will receive guarantees, and (3) women will receive guarantees in some countries, while minorities will receive them in others.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Representation Author(S): Jane Mansbridge Source: the American Political Science Review, Vol
    Rethinking Representation Author(s): Jane Mansbridge Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 515-528 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593021 . Accessed: 16/08/2013 04:49 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 [email protected]. American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 88.119.17.198 on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:49:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 4 November 2003 Rethinking Representation JANE MANSBRIDGE Harvard University long withthe traditional"promissory" form of representation,empirical political scientists have recently analyzed several new forms, called here "anticipatory,""gyroscopic," and "surrogate" representation. None of these more recently recognized forms meets the criteria for democratic accountability developed for promissory representation, yet each generates a set of normative criteria by which it can be judged. These criteria are systemic, in contrast to the dyadic criteria appropriate for promissory representation. They are deliberative rather than aggregative.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Democracy This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATTERNS of DEMOCRACY
    Patterns of Democracy This page intentionally left blank PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries SECOND EDITION AREND LIJPHART First edition 1999. Second edition 2012. Copyright © 1999, 2012 by Arend Lijphart. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (US offi ce) or [email protected] (UK offi ce). Set in Melior type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries / Arend Lijphart. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-17202-7 (paperbound : alk. paper) 1. Democracy. 2. Comparative government. I. Title. JC421.L542 2012 320.3—dc23 2012000704 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Gisela and for our grandchildren, Connor, Aidan, Arel, Caio, Senta, and Dorian, in the hope that the twenty-fi rst century—their century—will yet become more
    [Show full text]
  • American Political Science Review
    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hasidic Public Schools in Kiryas Joel
    The Draw and Drawbacks of Religious Enclaves in a Constitutional Democracy: Hasidic Public Schools in Kiryas Joel JUDITH LYNN FAILER' INTRODUCTION Recent work in political and constitutional studies has celebrated the salutary effects of robust civil societies for democracies.' Robert Putnam, for example, has described how Italian communities with stronger civic traditions have political leaders who are less "elitist" and are "more enthusiastic supporters of political equality" while their citizens' political involvement is characterized by "greater social trust and greater confidence in the law-abidingness of their fellow citizens than... citizens in the least civic regions."' William Galston makes a case for how civic organizations in civil society can foster the development of liberal virtues Jean L. Cohen and Andrew Arato have argued that civil society is "the primary locus for the potential expansion of democracy under 'really existing' liberal-democratic regimes." 4 * Assistant Professor of Political Science and American Studies, Indiana University-Bloomington. Prepared for presentation at a symposium on Civil Society, Indiana University School of Law, March 29, 1996. Thank you to Fred Aman and Steve Conrad for their generous invitation. I am grateful to Jane Mansbridge for helping me think through the ways by which Kiryas Joel poses particular challenges in democratic theory as an enclave group. Thank you also to Mark Brandon, Dana Chabot, David Orentlicher, and Jean Robinson for helpful conversations in preparation of this article, and to Jeffrey Isaac and Sanford Levinson for their suggestions for revisions. 1. For the purposes of this paper, Iam following John Gray's definition of "civil society" as "that sphere of autonomous institutions, protected by a rule of law, within which individuals and communities possessing divergent values and beliefs may coexist in peace." JOHN GRAY, POST LIBERALISM: STUDIES IN POLITICAL THOUGHT 157 (1993).
    [Show full text]
  • APSA Contributors AS of NOVEMBER 10, 2014
    APSA Contributors AS OF NOVEMBER 10, 2014 This list celebrates the generous contributions of our members in Jacobson Paul Allen Beck giving to one or more of the following programs from 1996 through 2014: APSA awards, programs, the Congressional Fellowship Pro- Cynthia McClintock John F. Bibby gram, and the Centennial Campaign. APSA thanks these donors for Ruth P. Morgan Amy B. Bridges ensuring that the benefi ts of membership and the infl uence of the Norman J. Ornstein Michael A. Brintnall profession will extend far into the future. APSA will update and print T.J. Pempel David S. Broder this list annually in the January issue of PS. Dianne M. Pinderhughes Charles S. Bullock III Jewel L. Prestage Margaret Cawley CENTENNIAL CIRCLE Offi ce of the President Lucian W. Pye Philip E. Converse ($25,000+) Policy Studies Organization J. Austin Ranney William J. Daniels Walter E. Beach Robert D. Putnam Ben F. Reeves Christopher J. Deering Doris A. Graber Ronald J Schmidt, Sr. Paul J. Rich Jorge I. Dominguez Pendleton Herring Smith College David B. Robertson Marion E. Doro Chun-tu Hsueh Endowment Janet D. Steiger for International Scholars Catherine E. Rudder Melvin J. Dubnick and Huang Hsing Kay Lehman Schlozman Eastern Michigan University Foundation FOUNDER’S CIRCLE ($5,000+) Eric J. Scott Leon D. Epstein Arend Lijphart Tony Affi gne J. Merrill Shanks Kathleen A. Frankovic Elinor Ostrom Barbara B. Bardes Lee Sigelman John Armando Garcia Beryl A. Radin Lucius J. Barker Howard J. Silver George J. Graham Leo A. Shifrin Robert H. Bates William O. Slayman Virginia H.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Political Economy: Revisiting Elinor Ostrom and Garrett Hardin
    POLITICS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY: REVISITING ELINOR OSTROM AND GARRETT HARDIN Will Parsley TC 660H Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin November 29, 2016 __________________________________________ Dr. Alexandra K. Wettlaufer French and Italian, Plan II Honors Supervising Professor __________________________________________ Joseph Bailey Jr. Plan II Honors Second Reader ABSTRACT Author: Will Parsley Title: Politics of Political Economy: Revisiting Elinor Ostrom and Garrett Hardin Supervising Professors: Dr. Alexandra K. Wettlaufer and Joseph Bailey Jr. The goal of this thesis is to provide perspective on Prof. Elinor Ostrom’s (d. 2012) challenges and achievements in the field of Political Economy. Her works, chiefly Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions of Collective Action published in 1990, are emblematic of a consensus change in the lens through which policy makers, economists, and everyday human beings view management of shared natural resources. Elinor “Lin” Ostrom’s thinking typifies that of the model 21st-century political economist: combining creative vision with dogged empirical research to address wholly new and distinctly modern sets of problems. Professor Ostrom tackled problems such as wildlife preservation, urban water management, and fishery conservation among others. Despite receiving the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009, her body of work on institutions for collective action is often undercut by its unearned reputation as a direct rebuttal to Garrett Hardin’s controversial essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” published in 1968. However, Ostrom's work stands alone. A clear-eyed review of political economics reveals the triumph of her indomitable conviction in her method over barriers created by gender- prejudice. 2 Introduction Political Economy is young academic field that features creative combinations of economics, political science, and ecology to solve humankind’s oldest resource problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Science & Politics
    Political Science & Politics Volume XXI Number 2 Spring 1988 "/ <£lVE. TbU A MAM WHO 6 RELI&10U5, QUX Cb NO fAhKTlc; A MAM VVHO ^V&RS ^ ro A eo/Mr; /\ MAN WHO LIKES Private Lives and Public Careers Bruce Buchanan, Ronald Elving and Sanford Levinson 1988 Annual Meeting Preview Chatham House Checklist Box One, Chatham, NJ 07928 Telephone: (201) 635-2059 * Arian: Politics in Israel it Ball: Modern Politics and Government 4ed * Cannon and O'Brien: Views from the Bench * Dalton: Citizen Politics in Western Democracies * Dogan and Pelassy: How to Compare Nations * Dolbeare: American Political Thought * Dolbeare: Democracy at Risk rev ed * Dragnich et al.: Politics and Government 2ed •sir Fry: Masters of Public Administration it Godwin: Direct Marketing of Politics * Goodsell: The Case for Bureaucracy 2ed •sir Hancock: West Germany •sir Hancock et al.: Politics in Western Europe ~k Hershey: Running for Office it Hinckley: The Symbolic Presidency * Hood: Tools of Government * Jacobs et al.: Comparative Politics * Jones: The Reagan Legacy * Kaufman: Time, Chance, and Organizations * King: The State in Modern Society it Lynn &. Wildavsky: Public Administration * McFarland: Common Cause * Meehan: The Thinking Game: A Guide to Effective Study * Orren and Polsby: Media and Momentum: New Hampshire * Peters: American Public Policy 2ed •sir Rose: The Post-Modern Presidency * Sartori: The Theory of Democracy Revisited * Savas: Privatization: The Key to Better Government * Wilson: Business and Politics * Published it Forthcoming On your request for exam copies, please state course title, present text, and enrollment on your letterhead and send it to Edward Artinian, publisher, Chatham House Publishers, Inc., Box One, Chatham, New Jersey 07928 or telephone (201) 635-2059.
    [Show full text]
  • JEFFREY C. ISAAC BORN: 5/20/1957 3807 Callery Ct
    JEFFREY C. ISAAC BORN: 5/20/1957 3807 Callery Ct. BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA 47408 PHONE: (812) 345-1586 James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science, Indiana University EDUCATION Ph.D., Yale University Department of Political Science, December 1983 (Dissertation:"Power: A Realist View," under the supervision of Professor Robert A. Dahl). M.A., Yale University Department of Political Science, November 1980. B.A., Queens College, City University of New York, June 1979. Doctoris Honoris Causa, National School of Political Science and Public Administration (SNSPA), Bucharest, Romania, June 2018 EMPLOYMENT Summer 1999-Present: James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington. Summer 2009-May 2017: Editor in Chief, Perspectives on Politics (a flagship journal of the American Political Science Association; in 2017 I received APSA’s Frank Goodnow Award for Distinguished Public Service to the Profession for my work). Fall 2003-Spring 2009: Department Chair, Political Science. Summer 2005-Summer 2009: Book Review Editor, Perspectives on Politics Summer 1994-Summer 1999: Professor of Political Science, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Jewish Studies and American Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington. Fall 1987-Spring 1994: Associate Professor of Political Science, Adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy and Jewish Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington. Spring 1984-Spring 1987: Assistant Professor of Political Science, Social Science Division Fordham University, Lincoln Center. Fall 1983-Spring 1984: Instructor of Political Science, Social Science Division, Fordham University, Lincoln Center. Fall 1982-Spring 1982: Adjunct Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Queens College, City University of New York. Spring 1981: Teaching Assistant, "Political Theory Since Hobbes," Department of Political Science, Yale University. BOOKS Power and Marxist Theory: A Realist View (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy
    on the horizon: Dædalus Civil Wars & Global Disorder: Threats & Opportunities edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner with James D. Fearon, Bruce Jones & Stephen John Stedman, Stewart Patrick, Martha Crenshaw, Paul H. Wise & Michele Barry, Sarah Kenyon Lischer, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Hendrik Spruyt, Stephen Biddle, Will Reno, Aila M. Matanock & Miguel García-Sánchez, and Barry Posen Ending Civil Wars: Constraints & Possibilities Democracy Summer 2017 The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Dædalus edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner Francis Fukuyama, Tanisha M. Fazal, Stathis N. Kalyvas, Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Steven Heydemann, Chuck Call & Susanna Campbell, Sumit Ganguly, Clare Lockhart, Thomas Risse & Summer 2017 Eric Stollenwerk, Tanja A. Börzel & Sonja Grimm, Seyoum Mesfi n & Abdeta Beyene, Nancy Lindborg & Joseph Hewitt, Richard Gowan & Stephen John Stedman, The Prospects & Limits of Lyse Doucet, and Jean-Marie Guéhenno Deliberative Democracy Native Americans & Academia edited by Ned Blackhawk, K. Tsianina Lomawaima, James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge, guest editors Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Philip J. Deloria, Loren Ghiglione, Douglas Medin, and Mark Trahant with Claus Offe · Nicole Curato John S. Dryzek · Selen A. Ercan Carolyn M. Hendriks · Simon Niemeyer Bernard Manin · Hélène Landemore Representing the intellectual community in its breadth Arthur Lupia · Anne Norton · Ian Shapiro and diversity, Dædalus explores the frontiers of Cristina Lafont · André Bächtiger · Simon Beste knowledge and issues of public importance. Alice Siu · Cass R. Sunstein · Roy William Mayega Lynn Atuyambe · Nathan Tumuhamye Julius Ssentongo · William Bazeyo Baogang He · Mark E. Warren U.S. $15; www.amacad.org; @americanacad Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences “The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy” Volume 146, Number 3; Summer 2017 James S.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Representation in at Least Four Contexts
    ARTICLES Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes" Jane Mansbridge Harvard University Disadvantaged groups gain advantages from descriptive representation in at least four contexts. In contexts of group mistrust and uncrystallized interests, the better communication and experiential knowledge of descriptive representatives enhances their substantive representation of the group's in- terests by improving the quality of deliberation. In contexts of historical political subordination and low de facto legitimacy, descriptive representation helps create a social meaning of "ability to rule" and increases the attachment to the polity of members of the group. When the implementation of de- scriptive representation involves some costs in other values, paying those costs makes most sense in these specific historical contexts. In at least four contexts, for four different functions, disadvantaged groups may want to be represented by "descriptive representatives," that is, individuals who in their own backgrounds mirror some of the more frequent experiences and out- ward manifestations of belonging to the group. For two of these functions—(1) adequate communication in contexts of mistrust, and (2) innovative thinking in contexts of uncrystallized, not fully articulated, interests—descriptive represen- tation enhances the substantive representation of interests by improving the quality of deliberation. For the other two functions—(1) creating a social mean- ing of "ability to rule" for members of a group in historical contexts where that ability has been seriously questioned, and (2) increasing the polity's de facto le- gitimacy in contexts of past discrimination—descriptive representation promotes goods unrelated to substantive representation. In the contexts of group mistrust, uncrystallized interests, a history suggesting inability to rule, and low de facto legitimacy, constitutional designers and in- This article was completed while the author was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Jane S. Jaquette Professor of Politics, Emerita
    Jane S. Jaquette Professor of Politics, Emerita Department of Politics [email protected] Occidental College 925 Yale Street 1600 Campus Road Santa Monica, CA 90405 Los Angeles, CA 90041 310-828-5434 74 Williams Path West Barnstable, MA 02668 508-375-9373 Education Ph.D. Cornell University (Government) 1971 B.A. Swarthmore College (Political Science) 1964 Employment Occidental College: Professor of Politics, Emerita, 2005 Teaching two courses a year. Bertha Harton Orr Professor in the Liberal Arts (1996-2005; emerita 2005- ) Professor of Politics (1982- 2005) Associate Professor of Political Science (1975-82) Assistant Professor of Political Science (1969-1972) Social Science Analyst,/Office of Women and Development. USAID (1979-81) Teaching: At Occidental, I have taught a range of courses in International Relations and Women’s Studies in the Politics and Diplomacy and World Affairs Departments, and I have team-taught courses in the Core Program and in the Critical Theory and Justice Studies department. Administrative Responsibilities at Occidental College Chair, Department of Diplomacy and World Affairs (1995-99; 2001; 2002-2004) Chair, Women’s Studies (1977-79, 1983-88, 1990-91) Director, Core Program in the Liberal Arts (1986-88) Chair, Department of Political Science (1972-3, 1981-84) Chair, Latin American Studies (1981-98) Member, Educational Policy and Curriculum Committee (1970-73, 1986-88) Member, Advisory Council (Tenure and Promotions) (1974-77, 1981-84, 1991-94, 1995-98) Organizer of Mellon Faculty Seminars on “Feminist Theory”
    [Show full text]