I really enjoyed reading Young’s article that advocated for
communicative democracy. Firstly she speaks of the criticisms of the
interest-based approach due to the fact that the individual does not have to
stray from their private wants and does not have to commune with others in
public to learn of their desires. For example, this could mean that rich, white,
heterosexual men, society’s most privileged group, do not have to consider
other groups, or even become knowledgeable about their situations before they
act.
Whereas, the deliberative model aims to bring people
together so that everyone has an equal voice. In this scenario people come
together to try and solve an issue with an open mind. However, Young’s argument
is that even though deliberative democracy tries to control for differences
through making the speakers equal in political and economic power there is
still a difference in social power that is not accounted for. The type of
communication that the deliberative model favors is a Western, scientific,
debate-type of speech that lacks emotion and expression, which is often
associated with white elites. As Young states, even though the idea of
deliberative democracy is to “express pure universal reason, the norms of
deliberation are culturally specific and often operate as forms of power that
silence or devalue the speech of some people” (123).
Furthermore, she goes on to state, “deliberation is
competition” (123). The confrontational and assertive style of speech that is
necessary in a deliberative model favors males over women. In discussions,
women tend to ask questions rather “initiate controversy” (123).
Moreover, in discussion settings some people feel as if they
have more of a right to speak than other, which means that the voices being
heard in the discussion are not truly equal. She states that “better-educated
white middle-class people” often think that they have more of a right to speech
than others.
These flaws in deliberative democracy illustrate that even
though it aims to bring people together on an equal playing field people do not
actually have an equal opportunity to voice their opinions in such settings.
Due to the fact of equality in deliberative democracy Young comes up with
communicative democracy as a solution. This type of democracy makes space for
greeting, rhetoric and storytelling.
These three things make discussions more accessible for a diverse group
of people.
Above all, you highlighted the problems with deliberative democracy very clearly. I like that, as it puts the article into a clearer light in terms of what she is supporting versus what she is arguing against. However, looking at this article and your blog, I wondered if the solution to all the issues she discusses is equal levels and access to education and equal privilege. Many of these things would be resolved by something that regulates society so that privilege ceases. That then allows a socialist or communist like regime to develop, therefore ending democracy. Ideally, I think, a midway point would be best to resolve this.
ReplyDelete