Language & Power in Deliberative Democracy

Inequality is Always in the Room: Language & Power in Deliberative Democracy

Arthur Lupia & Anne Norton

Abstract: Deliberative democracy has the potential to legitimize collective decisions. Deliberation’s legitimating potential, however, depends on whether those who deliberate truly enter as equals, whether they are able to express on equal terms their visions of the common good, and whether the forms and practices that govern deliberative assemblies advance or undermine their goals. Here, we examine these sources of deliberation’s legitimating potential. We contend that even in situations of apparent procedural equality, deliberation’s legitimating potential is limited by its potential to increase normatively focal power asymmetries. We conclude by describing how deliberative contexts can be modified to reduce certain types of power asymmetries, such as those often associated with gender, race, or class. In so doing, we hope to help readers consider a broader range of factors that influence the outcomes of attempts to restructure power relationships through communicative forums.

Deliberative democracy seems to offer democracy not only in our time, but in our neighborhoods. People meet as equals and reason together to find their way to a common good. We are not surprised, therefore, that deliberation is an idea with many advocates. Where people meet as equals, democracy is advanced. Where ARTHUR LUPIA, a Fellow of the people reason together, democracy is advanced. American Academy since 2007, is Deliberative democracy has the potential to legit- the Hal R. Varian Professor of Polit- imize collective decisions. Deliberation’s legitimat- ical Science and Research Profes- ing potential, however, depends on whether those sor in the Center for Political Stud- who deliberate truly enter as equals, whether they ies at the University of Michigan. are able to express on equal terms their visions of the ANNE NORTON is Professor of common good, and whether the forms and practices Political Science and Compara- that govern deliberative assemblies advance or un- tive Literature at the University dermine their goals. In this essay, we examine these of Pennsylvania. sources of deliberation’s legitimating potential. (*See endnotes for complete contributor Beneath and throughout the evaluation of delib- biographies.) erative democracy are questions about whether and

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 how language facilitates communication and imating potential of deliberative mecha- Arthur whether and how communications inform as- nisms is limited by the possibility that they Lupia & Anne sent. In attempts to measure the effective- can increase, rather than reduce, norma- Norton ness of deliberation, either theoretically tively focal power asymmetries. or empirically, it is common to reference Language and communication them- instances of consensus, compromise, or selves entail power relationships. Lan- clarifying sources of conflict as evidence guage gains meaning, and communication of success. Deliberative endeavors that fail becomes an efficient means of communi- to produce such outcomes are seen as less cating ideas, in part because language and successful. communication each build from, build on, The path to such outcomes travels and reify existing power imbalances. Lan- through sequences of communicative acts. guage issues from power, language creates These acts entail members of a society de- power, language is inseparable from pow- scribing their lifeworlds to one another. In er. Deliberative exercises that use language the deliberative ideal, participants are free and communication to produce assent and to make these descriptions without having legitimacy cannot help but produce their to filter them in ways that conform to ex- outcomes on the backs of existing pow- isting power imbalances. Participants de- er asymmetries. Even language environ- scribe their lives as they live and feel them. ments that claim to feature universal in- In the deliberative ideal, participants are clusion and procedural equality cannot be free to express their views on any social- assumed to be independent of deep and ly relevant issue. They need not subjugate potentially destructive power dynamics. themselves to dominant views of history, In what follows, we seek to inform delib- culture, and power. Through listening to eration as a means of producing legitimate these narratives, participants may come social decisions. We focus on the kinds of to an appreciation of diverse lifeworlds. power imbalances that are present in lan- Through this understanding, communi- guage and communicative practices. In so ties may come to realize shared norms and doing, we demonstrate how the language shared foundations for legitimate collec- and communication that people might use tive action. in deliberative settings carry these inequi- Deliberation’s potential to create legiti- ties to new places–even when a delibera- macy lies in its ability to limit the kinds of tor’s intention is to reduce their impact. oppression and power asymmetries pres- In our examples, language and communi- ent in other means of social decision-mak- cation pertain not only to what is formal- ing, where these other ways of “legitimat- ly written or intentionally said, but also to ing” social decisions include violence, the what is read by others when they see our edicts of oligarchs, decisions produced bodies or imagine our backgrounds. We by the power structures underlying many will argue that it is difficult or impossible modern democracies, and distributional for participants in a deliberative setting to outcomes influenced by the world’s myri- unsee what they are clearly seeing or un- ad systems of markets. For this reason, we think the meanings others communicate focus particular attention on the extent to when they present themselves. These non- which deliberative mechanisms mitigate verbal communications infuse conversa- power asymmetries. We contend that even tions and affect deliberation’s ability to in situations of apparent procedural equal- produce legitimate outcomes. ity with respect to every individual’s basic We conclude by describing how delib- right to convey their lifeworlds, the legit- erative contexts can be modified to reduce

146 (3) Summer 2017 65

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality certain types of power asymmetries, such gives us access to the past. Language can be is Always as those often associated with gender, race, used to categorize the present and to pro- in the Room: Language & or class. In so doing, we hope to help read- pose desired futures. Language enables peo- Power in ers consider a broader range of factors that ple to overcome the isolation integral to hu- Deliberative Democracy influence the outcomes of attempts to de- man experience. People are able to speak of velop norms or restructure power relation- their pain, their pleasure, their needs, their ships through communicative acts. hopes, and their experiences. They are free to make public their sense of things: their When communication and language are in interpretation of events, institutions, laws, the room, so are inequality and coercion. and customs. Communication. The foundation of hu- Language also constrains. We enter a man interaction. The principal means by world already named, in which meanings which we express basic emotions. Love. are attached to all that we encounter, in- Anger. Fear. The vehicle through which cluding our bodies. Language makes us we convey tales of heroes and villains. The meaningful to ourselves. We know our sex, medium through which individuals testify our race, our ancestry, our faith, and our about their vulnerabilities and adversities. politics through language. We are often giv- The means by which oppressed persons en a race (or two), an ethnicity, a class posi- seek assurance and plead for assistance. tion, a nation. Each of these comes with a When seeking to manage problems that history. Each of these comes with a mean- we as individuals cannot solve on our own, ing that predates our awareness of them. we seek communicative currencies that al- We are governed by language even when low us to discover shared histories, devel- we are silent. When we use language we op common interests, and build trust. Com- are bound by words whose meanings are munication offers a foundation from which already set, by grammatical rules and by we construct social compacts and con- other linguistic conventions.1 Philosopher tracts. These pacts set the stage for all forms of language Paul Grice observed that we of collective action and influence the terms have incentives to use terms that are eas- by which such actions are remembered. ily understood by others.2 To achieve un- Language. The languages and lexicons derstanding in the space of a single con- that we use to communicate with one an- versation, we use familiar words. We seek other are intricate human creations. They analogies, metaphors, and examples that help us organize the world for ourselves are likely to be familiar to others. Many and describe it to others. Language pro- of these words are well established with vides a means for categorizing worlds ob- long histories. In our quests for fluidity served and imagined. Language is, howev- and speed, we seldom take time to reflect er, our maker as well as our servant. We en- on the origins of these rules, examples, or ter a world language has made for us. Our words. Those who do, Heidegger and Ni- most intimate experiences are mediated by etzsche among them, enrich our thinking, language. but they too cannot fully comprehend the At all times, language frees and con- infinite and changing richness of a word. strains. The meaning of a word may shift as it Language frees us by allowing us to com- travels from one geographic, political, or bine its words and phrases in an infinite class site to another. Words change with number of ways. Language gives us the cause. However erudite, however careful we pacity to express diverse ideas and emo- are, we cannot fully control the meanings tions. The continuity of language over time and connotations of the words that we use.

66 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 They have associations that may be unin- this topic, for example, we can consider Arthur tended by us, even unknown to us. “googling” the topic and then “emailing” Lupia & Anne Our words reflect and extend power in or “texting” what we find to others. We Norton ways that we only partially understand. can ask what has changed in jihad as the Some words and rules provide easy ways to word has traveled west. inflict cruelty. Some words and rules have Yet in this march of linguistic “progress,” a cruelty that is felt by others but hidden new meaning sometimes emerges at the ex- from us. Often that capacity for cruelty is pense of old meaning. What is lost in these available only to some. The sting of racial evolutions may be seen by imaginative in- epithets, for example, is often more severe terlocutors as rightfully subservient to new when voiced by those who occupy a high- expressions. But the old meanings we sac- er position in a racial hierarchy. rifice for contemporaneous convenience We use language to hide, as well as to re- may be lost to future selves in need of those veal, our sentiments. The purposes of some meanings. The march of meaning as mani- of these devices range from saving face to fest in language is a dialectic between pres- deflecting attention away from unattractive ent and past, between the creators of lan- elements of ourselves and toward the un- guage and those who are made in it. attractive attributes of those who threaten Most of us don’t think about communi- us. We bite our tongues at critical moments cation and language in these ways very of- not because we are uninjured, but because ten, if at all. As long as our words elicit the we hope that such patience will produce its social and cognitive reactions that we seek, own rewards. we carry on without thinking about what We are made in language–as Wittgen- meaning and power our words have con- stein and Lacan, Gadamer and Lévi-Strauss veyed. We don’t think about these things (and a host of others) recognized–but we despite the fact that every time we use lan- are also the makers of language. We coin guage, we transport myriad residues of hu- new words and phrases. For each new mix- man relationships to new places and peo- ture we create, others attend to them or ple. We reinforce social and political struc- they do not. They derive meaning or walk tures, often without willing to do so. In our away confused. They use our words to ex- use of language, we export broader, frac- press their own feelings–or they do not. If tured elements of history from the past to they do not, whatever we were trying to ex- the present. press at that moment withers away. In the In every quest to achieve fast coordina- hands of skilled or privileged communication and mutual understanding through tors, language is an instrument of incred- communication and language, we neces- ible power, yet even the most eloquent of- sarily provide new energy to a continuance ten find language inadequate.3 of the past imbalances and power asym- Because we make language, important metries that are part of every widely used attributes of language change. Grammar language. In so doing, we use words that changes. Idioms change. Some changes are assert authority. We use terms that can in- willful and deliberate: we choose not to say spire or injure. We do this even when at- a host of once common racial and ethnic tempting to find common meaning. Even epithets. Other changes are unconscious. when attempting to mitigate power rela- They are the work of practice, represent- tionships. Even when we incompletely un- ing erosions in the structure of language derstand the meaning that others derive made by the currents of speech and writ- from our words–which is to say, almost ing in the everyday. To learn more about always.

146 (3) Summer 2017 67

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality Language is not only a matter of words, ligion will be inflected by the hijab or the is Always spoken and heard. Language is also writ- habit the speaker wears. in the Room: Language & ten. The written is carried not only in We are often not fully conscious of the Power in words but also in other signs. The silent texts we write on our bodies as we dress, Deliberative Democracy body speaks, whether it wills that speech but we are unconscious adepts at reading or not. It speaks of its place in the social or- them. We see the people that surround us der: of race, sex, age. The black man must not as naked human beings, not even sim- speak as a black man, the white woman as ply as people inscribed with only race and a white woman. The old speak from the sex and age. We see them as members of shell of age. Some speak from the haze of social orders, clothed with information beauty. The text written on the body, read about their positions and their preferenc- from the body, may amplify or mute what es. Policemen and firemen, military offi- the speaker says, but it cannot be easily si- cers and security guards wear uniforms. lenced. We know where they work. We know the Nonverbal communication communi- Army lieutenant has taken an oath, that cates. Nonverbal expression expresses. the fireman is willing to risk his life for oth- Utterances and meanings enter the room ers. We know the captain outranks the ser- with us. They are part of the conversation, geant, though the sergeant may be older. whether they are formally recognized, whis- We know the general makes a lot more pered in the shadows, or have emerged in money than the private, that he may have others’ consciousness automatically once advised presidents, that he has power. We we are seen. Few speeches have the power know the workers at Target and McDon- of the silent body. Often the texts of race ald’s make less money than the general, and sex and age operate as supplements; that they almost certainly have less edu- they are, in Derrida’s phrase, “that which cation. We know they have less power. We adds only to replace.” The man of the Dec- conclude, on the basis of good evidence, laration of the Rights of Man is displaced that the woman in the starched cap of the by blackness, evoking not the triumph of Amish and the Mennonites is unlikely to freedom but the legacy of slavery. support abortion or military intervention. We have spoken before we speak, we The texts written in clothing have all the have been read before we write. The peo- power and imperfections, all the strategies ple who enter a room carry not only the in- and misfires, that one encounters in other scribed body, but the many texts they have uses of language. A person may try to dress written on that body: when they shaved unobtrusively and nevertheless boast of or didn’t shave, when they put on make- wealth, forgetting, for example, the famil- up, when they dressed. The people who de- iar Rolex on the wrist. But clothing–like liberate do so clothed in texts that speak every other form of speech–does not al- of their place: of their wealth or pover- ways tell the truth. One can use clothing ty, their religion, their level of education, to pass: as richer or poorer, man or wom- their regions, their preferences and poli- an, even as black or white. tics. The uniform and the political T-shirt The texts written on the body, and those carry messages, but so do headphones and that people write on themselves, enter with Birkenstocks. The clothes a speaker wears those who deliberate. One can, of course, inflect the speech. Speech about policies forbid uniforms, but clothing will remain, toward Israel carries different meanings and the physical signs of race, sex, poverty, when it comes from a body wearing a kipot age, and certain types of abuse are difficult or a kaffiyeh. Speech about freedom of re- to erase.

68 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 The texts written on the body are not, lifeworlds. Everyone, in principle, having Arthur however, simply problems to be overcome, a right to speak. No one having to modi- Lupia & Anne impediments to be set aside. They can op- fy their truths for the sake of going along Norton erate–rarely, but with great force–as occa- to get along. Each person obliged to con- sions for questioning and enlightenment. front, face-to-face, the people with whom Thinking of the Declaration of the Rights they share a caucus, a district, a country. of Man and of the Citizen when the man Each person faced with a body that, like or is black and the citizen is Native Ameri- unlike their own, shares a common human- can raises questions that can spur deliber- ity and with it the whole human comple- ation. Sojourner Truth changed the debate ment. These deliberative ideas are seen as when she asked in her blackness “Ar’n’t I a way to mediate and reduce socially dam- a woman?” The visible presence of pover- aging power inequities. ty can alert the well-to-do about relations Common ideal forms of deliberation build between luck and skill in the current social not just from the premise that everyone has order. The vision can induce them to think a right to speak; they build from the premise about how they would want to distribute that speakers will actually be heard.5 In oth- power and privilege if skill-luck relations er words, participants enter not only with a turned out to be even a little bit different license to speak but also with an obligation than they imagined. to listen. The obligation is not necessarily Whether carried by language or appear- to agree, but to actively engage what all the ance, inequality is in the room even before stakeholders feel they need to say. the deliberators enter. One can always, must Hence, many deliberative ideals depend always, ask what the room says. Who is si- on the implicit assumption that in the ideal, lenced or intimidated by the room?4 Who participants would have an unconstrained feels at home in the room? Is the room in capacity for attention and listening. This is a public building or a church? The ex-con- a problem in practice. Time is scarce. Atten- vict and the undocumented immigrant en- tion is limited. Sometimes people say things ter public buildings on different terms than that we have heard a hundred times before. the policeman and the public official. The We tune them out. Or they repeat them- union hall may be enemy territory for the selves. We tune them out. Or they offend businessman; the church an unsettling us. We tune them out. There is also preju- space for a Jew. Parents walking into a pub- dice. Not just what we think about when we lic school will be faced with rooms like those see certain types of people, but also what we their own children occupy, or with rooms think about when we hear certain types of that boast of riches denied to their children, words spoken in certain types of ways. In or a poverty that their children do not face. many cases, we tune those words out. The room will speak of privilege or depriva- A considerable scholarly literature on at- tion, of class and regional identities. There tention tells us what our experience has al- is no neutral, unspeaking space. Perhaps the ready shown: we ignore almost every piece harshest speech of all would be the clinical of information to which we are exposed, we sterility of a room with no chairs and white pay fleeting attention to almost every piece walls. of information to which we pay any attention, and most of the phenomena to which Which brings us to deliberation. The idea we do pay attention leave no lasting impact has such promise. The idea of forward-look- on our subsequent feelings or memories.6 ing individuals. The idea of sharing. Unfil- In other cases, we have the ability to pay tered descriptions of diverse individual attention, but we are so self-focused that

146 (3) Summer 2017 69

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality we “listen” only for an instrumental rea- sensuses, compromises, or agreements is Always son: to set up our own awesome response. reached after a deliberative session? Can in the Room: Language & Here, we are constantly thinking of how we say that everyone reached an identical Power in to shore up our positions. How to expand understanding about the entirety of the tes- Deliberative Democracy or protect our self-esteem. How to elevate timony that their setting allowed? No, we our social position. How to arrange the mo- cannot say that or, indeed, anything close ment in a way that will help others appreci- to it unless the deliberation was remark- ate our virtuousness in the stories that we ably short and its content was the type to will later tell others about this exchange. which people could devote undivided at- So we listen as tacticians, plotting the next tention. In all other cases, physical limits move in a game we think we already know of attention and memory prevent people how to win. from recalling all elements of a sustained Even when we are not consciously using communicative interaction. Even if peo- a conversation for the purpose of self-infla- ple remember many such elements, there tion, we can be led astray by our attempts would be questions about how heavily they to place another’s words in a context that should weight them in any post-delibera- we feel comfortable contemplating. When tive conclusions that they draw. Should the black woman speaks, the white wom- people weight all aspects of all utteranc- an may think “she is a woman like me, es equally? Should they realize that some she will be an ally” or “the black woman people take longer than others to “get to is speaking, will she reproach me?” The the point” and perhaps discount utterances black woman may speak unwillingly of of excessively wordy individuals? Should blackness, willingly of her wealth and priv- they account for the fact that some people ilege, or vice versa. The white woman may may be speaking strategically in order to be so distracted by her concern with her achieve a certain outcome where others’ own standing in the black woman’s eyes utterances are more heartfelt? that she fails to listen, fails to hear, what There are limits to what deliberative out- the black woman actually says. She may comes can tell us about what thoughts and listen, but only to hear the voice of the race feelings its participants share.7 If a deliber- while ignoring a person caught in a partic- ative proceeding goes on for too long, peo- ular mesh of structures and constraints of ple may lose hope about their ability to be which race is only a part. She may hear the heard. Others may be more likely to be- voice of the race, but if she fails to hear the come tired and less likely than others to voice of the speaker, she will have heard a recall a particular moment in a conversa- message quite different from the one the tion. Some may be hungry, have children speaker intended to convey. When we lis- waiting at home for dinner or bedtime, or ten to others, we may listen for the voice even have to go to the bathroom and “as- of the race and fail to hear the voice of pov- sent” to a particular proposition to facili- erty or the wisdom of age. We may listen tate a speedy exit. Others may by physically for the guidance of the educated and fail to or intellectually attracted to a person in the hear a more refined bigotry. We may work room and assent to a particular proposition to hear difference and fail to hear an invita- to increase the likelihood of subsequent in- tion to make common cause. We may fail teractions. None of these forces can be kept to hear the voice of one person, like and from a deliberative context. unlike all others. In some theories of deliberation, con- With these communicative dynamics straints to interpreting a post-deliberative in mind, what can we say about the con- consensus, compromise, or agreement

70 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 would themselves be limited by the idea but it also excluded abolitionists. Refusal Arthur that deliberation is not a discrete event. In to accept a compromise of that kind can be Lupia & Anne some theories, perpetual openness to new politically and morally defensible. Should Norton information is a key part of the device’s nor- we commend efforts to reach a compro- mative appeal. So agreements made for the mise over segregation or apartheid? Those purpose of a fleeting convenience can be who value peace, order, and the rule of law undone. A practical problem, however, is very highly may say yes. That hierarchy of that undoing agreements that were alleged political values is not without its defects to represent the broad assent of deliberative and dangers. The civil rights movement in participants takes time to do. If such “do- the United States depended on a willing- overs” were to happen often, they could re- ness to disturb the peace. King called for duce confidence in the future force of a cur- civil disobedience and defiance of the laws rent agreement. Why invest one’s heart and that maintained an unjust racial order. De- soul into a deep conversation about how we colonization required more aggressive, should live if we are repeatedly asked to “re- even violent confrontations with law and consider” any consensus, compromise, or order. Even a tacit assumption that com- agreement that we might reach? promise is what deliberation seeks can un- To avoid attaching to deliberative out- dermine the larger democratic end of seek- comes interpretations that limits of mem- ing common understanding and the com- ory and forces of identity cannot sustain, mon good. people should enter fully conscious of their In all interpretations, moreover, we are fallibility, unsure that they understand–or also apt to overestimate our capacities for even could understand–the experiences empathy. Consider, for example, Hannah of their fellow participants. They should Arendt’s “Essay on Little Rock.” In her distrust their knowledge, their capacity for rejection of forced desegregation, Arendt empathy, and even their values. speaks for and as “the Negro mother.” Ar- They should realize that if consensus is endt’s confidence in her capacity for un- the object, certain outcomes are foreclosed derstanding and sympathy misleads her. at the outset. If agreement is the end, cer- The passage is cited now not as an instance tain positions are delegitimated at the out- of empathy or solidarity, but as evidence set. Consider a meeting that asks Scot- of the limits of her thinking. tish nationalists to join an effort to reach a Efforts to reach common ground or a consensus on how to maintain the United common understanding are seductive, Kingdom. The Scottish nationalist would particularly for Americans. We often be- be better served by a call to deliberate over lieve these are easier to reach than our his- “whether the United Kingdom should con- tory indicates. We retain a commitment in tinue in its present form” than a call to “find principle to the idea that “all men are cre- common ground for the United Kingdom.” ated equal,” that they are endowed with a They should realize that if compromise common set of rights, needs, and desires. is a desired outcome of deliberation, those Yet even if we all have the right (and the who reject compromise are excluded. Yet need) for life and liberty, even if we all have rejection and refusal may be the most use- the right (and the desire) to pursue happi- ful and honorable forms of action in some ness, we differ profoundly on what these instances. Consider the Missouri Compro- objects are and how we should be permit- mise. That compromise was predicated ted to pursue them. The belief that we un- on the imperative to maintain the Union. derstand the rights, the needs, and the in- That construction excluded secessionists, terests of those we join in discussion is un-

146 (3) Summer 2017 71

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality reliable at best. It may lead–it has led–to Democratic passion and will are problems is Always efforts to impose compromises that have to be solved. The liberal answers to the in the Room: Language & held us back: the three-fifths clause being problem of democracy have been rules and Power in an early and shaming example. Common representation. Deliberative Democracy ground can be rocky and shifting. Histo- Many observers fear that the great mass- ry and memory may come to reproach us es of people are incapable of deliberation. for decisions we reach together. We can- Most people, they conclude, are prone to ir- not completely avoid error and, therefore, rational fears, hatreds, appetites, and hopes. we must regard any common ground we Rules are necessary to rein them in. Rep- reach not as where we end, but as a rest- resentation moves the most important de- ing place along the way. cisions, the most technical decisions, and perhaps any decision requiring reason away Deliberation is a liberal enterptise. It ex- from the masses toward a smaller group. presses the liberal commitment to order The few, it is argued, can reason as the many and procedure. Deliberative meetings are cannot. governed by rules, procedures, and norms In liberal democratic systems, the legit- of practice. These mechanisms aim at en- imacy of the decisions of the representa- suring equality and giving everyone a hear- tives is grounded in democratic right. The ing. Those who follow the rules and ob- answer to the question “who gave them serve the conventions appear to be show- the right to decide for the people?” is “the ing a greater willingness to advance the people.” That claim is far less tenable for deliberative process, to engage with others any deliberative group making decisions and to find common ground, but it is also for others. It is still less tenable for any de- possible that they are simply better served liberative group not chosen by those they by the rules in place. Those who are most are supposed to represent. Legitimacy is willing to search for common ground may further compromised with any delibera- be those who hold a strategic advantage on tive group impeded by unseen power asym- that ground. metries in communication. The advocates Liberalism is, however, not always con- of deliberative endeavors are not always at- ducive to liberal values, and it can be very tentive to these matters. How those who much at odds with democracy. If those deliberate are chosen and how they view who deliberate and subsequently decide one another determine whether the assem- make their decisions only for themselves, bly will be liberal, liberal-democratic, or the enterprise may capture, in its form, neither, in relation to the people for whom valuable elements of liberal democracy. they speak. That is, deliberation linked with decision This matters because deliberation values is an instance of people governing them- rationality in both its forms: as reason and selves within a set of procedures (ideally, as order. For many deliberation advocates, ones they make themselves) and a com- the commitment to reason is explicit, pro- mitment to using reason to advance de- found, and made with conviction. In this mocracy. If those who deliberate decide advocacy, those who deliberate are called for others, the enterprise is troubled as all not only (and perhaps not primarily) to representation is troubled. share their lifeworlds with one another. Deliberation also reflects the liberal un- Participants are called to reason together. ease with democracy. Liberalism, like so The language of reason is always appropri- much of political thought before it, regards ate and welcome in such meetings. The lan- democratic power as a force to be managed. guage of passion is not.

72 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 We believe, however, that politics re- skilled. Any resulting consensus, compro- Arthur quires more than reason alone; politics mise, or agreement will not simply emanate Lupia & Anne requires passion. It is passion that enables from equal consideration of all relevant life- Norton people to endure the “slow drilling through worlds, it will also reflect different abilities hard boards” that is the work of politics. It to use language in quests for influence. is passion that enables people to endure the Moreover, the acts in question, both the frustration of listening to views they find speaking acts and the listening acts, will be tedious or abhorrent. It is passion that en- made by people. These people will be seen ables people to convey not just the facts, before they speak and they will be interpret- but the subjective experience of a lifeworld. ed before they attempt to convey any mean- It is passion that enables people to chal- ing. We will know who enters marked with lenge settled beliefs and political conven- signs of privilege. We will know who lacks tions that they believe are unjust. If deliber- those signs. We will know who enters a fa- ation is to produce shared understandings miliar place and who enters a foreign one. with legitimating potential, if it is to pro- Appearance and words will interact. Some duce shared assent that reflects the life ex- appearances will help deliberative partic- periences of the diverse people whom such ipants recognize the diversity, glory, and endeavors are meant to represent, delibera- pain of different lives. Other appearanc- tion requires passion as well as reason. Jane es will lead deliberative participants to ig- Mansbridge’s distinction between first- nore what is being said or to substitute their and second-generation deliberative theory own privileged narrative for the one that the marks this recognition among deliberative speaker is attempting to convey. theorists themselves. Second-generation We will know things about the process. deliberativists have recognized that emo- We will know who is likely to be advan- tion and passionate intensity contain truth taged by its procedures. We will know that as well.8 assent may be the product of people holding back. People may not reveal their true mo- With these and related challenges in tivations. People may give in to power out mind, what can we read from a deliberative of desperation, fatigue, or fear. People may outcome that can legitimate a collective de- choose to remain silent in the face of history- cision? To answer this question, suppose bound and institutionally reinforced asym- that a major goal of deliberation is to convey metries. legitimacy to some socially relevant propo- For these reasons and more, we will know sitions and withhold such legitimacy from that a deliberation-generated consensus, others. Suppose, moreover, that the form of compromise, or agreement that represents deliberation is an ideal version that entails a deeply shared understanding to a clearly a universal right to participation. stated set of principles will often be obser- Let’s start with what we know. The com- vationally equivalent to a deliberative out- municative acts that precede the outcome come that is the result of all of the asymmet- will use language that conveys power. They ric and oppressive factors described above. will be used by people who are more and So a deliberatively generated outcome can less skilled in using language to acquire be normatively desirable, it can represent power. If participants are not paying close real intellectual exchange, and it can be le- attention to these skill imbalances, and if gitimating–but it is none of these things the deliberative rules are not built to miti- automatically. gate deleterious effects of such imbalances, As a result, now is an opportune mo- participants are likely to be swayed by the ment to reevaluate claims about deliber-

146 (3) Summer 2017 73

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality ation that gauge its effectiveness by refer- fy violent responses? Are there some state- is Always encing instances of opinion movement, ments to which a society’s best response is in the Room: Language & opinion convergence, or language-based to, at minimum, stop the conversation? Power in consensus. Such outcomes represent the What if deliberation reveals insurmount- Deliberative Democracy normative desires that have led many to be able oppositions? This discovery might interested in deliberation. The forces de- not require violence, but it might well call scribed above allow language to carry pow- for secession or partition. For any num- er asymmetries to new destinations. They ber of reasons, deliberative situations can allow seemingly open and equal commu- be as coercive as violence, with the add- nicative domains to be dens of oppression. ed insult that the coerced are presumed to Language-based consensus, compromise, consent, or to have been overcome by rea- or agreement, in the presence of such forc- son. In extreme cases, this outcome, while es, becomes a limited means of conferring not entailing physical violence, would be legitimacy to collective decisions in mod- attempting to generate legitimacy on the ern societies. basis of dishonest claims about what language-based consensus, compromise, or Deliberation takes place in a communi- agreement actually means. cative forum. In such forums, participants Having now raised questions about wheth- engage in speech acts with the possibility er and how language facilitates communication of converging on shared meaning. Delib- and whether and how communications inform eration is endorsed on the basis of theories assent, we turn to two final questions that and beliefs about how these shared mean- scholars and practitioners can use to rec- ings provide individuals and societies with oncile their motives for seeking delibera- a stronger and broader moral, ethical, and tive activities with likely outcomes of those technical foundation for improving quali- attempts: ty of life. But communication and language 1) What outcomes can we actually ex- carry inequality, and the limits of human pect from deliberation? attention, patience, and self-love create or 2) Are there any conditions that would reinforce coercive conversational norms. make these outcomes more tolerable from The promise and the principal challenge the perspective of persons or populations of deliberation is that language is a weap- who are otherwise run asunder by the on that can be wielded with great force. wheels of political and social institutions? There is no way to construct a deliberative To address these questions, we begin environment in which asymmetry, power, with the recognition that deliberation is and potentially coercive flashpoints do not another way of allocating power. It privi- contribute to the outcome. If deliberation leges some interests at the expense of oth- is to be justified on the basis of its abili- ers. It is not generally neutral with respect ty to mitigate power imbalances, the do- to who wins and who loses. main of deliberative interactions must be When the social project motivating de- constrained. liberative democracy is to reduce a partic- Many people who advocate for deliber- ular set of social imbalances, the question ation take for granted that deliberation is becomes when and whether it is possible preferable to violence. But what if deliber- for deliberative participants to recognize ation simply reinforces the experience of these imbalances and design subsequent oppression? Given the examples and fac- interactions to diminish them. The power tors raised in this essay, such outcomes are imbalances that deliberation proponents imaginable. Do some uses of speech justi- believe they are stopping at a deliberative

74 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 chamber’s front door will storm in through than seeking to overcome differences, it Arthur the back and take over the proceedings. might be better to enshrine them institu- Lupia & Anne To take such concerns seriously, a suffi- tionally (for example, through federalism Norton cient number of deliberative participants or concurrent majority) or to develop a mo- must share a set of values that induces dus vivendi that preserves the differences. them to be aware of the imbalances, to In this stance, we echo the second genera- try to mitigate them procedurally, and to tion of deliberative theorists who see clar- seek measures of progress that the affect- ifying conflict as an important goal of de- ed participants would recognize as valid. liberation and extend their view by asking If there is not a sufficient values consensus for further introspection about how agree- on the need to protect a particular popu- ment is or is not a product of the coercive lation or point of view, there will be little power of language described above. or no motive to pursue procedural change Politics entails deep value conflicts, mon- or to measure the effects of these proce- umental struggles for power, and real ques- dures on the affected. In such cases, claims tions about quality of life. To manage these of having achieved legitimacy or advanced dynamics and facilitate efficient social in- democracy would not reflect actual cir- teraction, communities seek to discover cumstances. If deliberation is to be legiti- shared values and build agreements from mating from the broadest set of perspec- these discoveries. If it is important that po- tives, then the expectation must be that the litical communities are built from honest weak can receive justification from their assessments of what their members actu- own perspectives and on their own terms. ally share, then it is important to be cog- One of the redemptive possibilities of nizant of how deliberative outcomes are language is that it enables people to trans- manufactured. In such inquiries, we can form status; to take a lower status position come closer to understanding whether de- and use it as a claim to power. Such trans- liberative outcomes are meaningful or illu- formations can produce situations when sory, sustainable or ephemeral, and, hence, formerly (or presently) less powerful peo- whether they are capable of securing legit- ple control the conversation (or seem to). imate decisions and advancing a common Thus the many complaints about political good. correctness. One may respond: “So what? It is the turn of the less powerful to exercise a control that once silenced them.” While this type of response may dismay some deliberation advocates, it should not be light- ly dismissed. Deliberate changes in who controls communication can reveal new foundations of justice that would otherwise go unspoken. Another proposal that could make deliberation’s outcomes more tolerable from the perspective of persons or populations whom political and social institutions otherwise diminish is that consensus, compromise, or agreement should not always be the aim. If differences arise, perhaps they should remain: open and acknowledged. Rather

146 (3) Summer 2017 75

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021 Inequality endnotes is Always * in the Room: Contributor Biographies: ARTHUR LUPIA, a Fellow of the American Academy since 2007, is the Language & Hal R. Varian Professor of Political Science and Research Professor in the Center for Political Power in Studies at the University of Michigan. He is the author of Uninformed: Why People Know So Little Deliberative about Politics and What We Can Do about It (2016) and The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What Democracy They Need to Know? (with Mathew D. McCubbins, 1998) and editor of The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (with James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, and James H. Kuklinski, 2011). ANNE NORTON is Professor of Political Science and Comparative Literature at the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. She is the author of On the Muslim Question (2013), Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (2004), 95 Theses on Politics, Culture, and Method (2004), Republic of Signs: Liberal Theory and American Popular Culture (1993), Reflections on Political Identity (1988), and Alternative Amer- icas: A Reading of Antebellum Political Culture (1986). 1 For a summary and discussion with extensive references, including those in this and the fol- lowing paragraphs, see Anne Norton, 95 Theses on Politics, Culture, and Method (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004), 12–27. 2 Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 41–58. See also Arthur Lupia, Uninformed: Why People Know So Little about Politics and What We Can Do about It (New York: Ox- ford University Press, 2016). 3 The literature on the politics of language is vast and rich. For a summary and discussion with extensive references, see Norton, 95 Theses on Politics, Culture, and Method, 12–27. 4 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Lon- don: Routledge, Kegan & Paul, 1984). 5 Arthur Lupia, Yanna Krupnikov, and Adam Seth Levine, “Beyond Facts and Norms: How Psychological Transparency Threatens and Restores Deliberation’s Legitimating Potential,” Southern California Law Review 86 (3) (March 2013): 459–493. The authors link normative theories of deliberative democracy to empirical literatures on attention limits and communication dynamics. 6 For example, see Alan Baddeley, “Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies,” An- nual Review of Psychology 63 (1) (2012): 1–29; and Earl K. Miller and Timothy J. Buschman, “Work- ing Memory Capacity: Limits on the Bandwidth of Cognition,” Dædalus 144 (1) (Winter 2015): 112–122. 7 Iris Marion Young, “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Seyla Benhabib (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 120–135. 8 Jane Mansbridge, “A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation,” in Deliberation and Development: Rethinking The Role of Voice and Collective Action In Unequal Societies, ed. Patrick Heller and Vijayendra Rao (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2014).

76 Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00447 by guest on 28 September 2021