This week’s question is “In general, address the question of how the author thinks
about the challenges of difference (in terms of race, gender, etc.) to
democratic theory and practice.” Iris Young in her piece discusses
the two predominant democratic processes; one that is termed interest-based and
the other that she calls deliberative democracy. According to the interest-based
model, democracy is not so much a collective agenda as it is the dynamic
expression and confluence of various ideas and opinions; in her words “Interest
based conceptions of democracy consider democracy primarily as a process of
expressing one’s preferences and demands, and registering them in a vote” thus
allowing for the voices of everyone involved (Young 120). However she aligns
her critique of this model to the ideas espoused in deliberate democracy, which
proposes a system that allows for the voices of differing individuals, but with
the goal or aim of reaching a consensus and executing a plan that may work to
the benefit of all at a generally equal rate. She states “…the model of
deliberative democracy [is] a process that creates a public, citizens coming
together to talk about collective problems, goals, ideas, and how to achieve
them” (Young 121). This model promotes a collective attitude towards
government, rather than the Western system of interest-based government that
provides few rational and equitable solutions to public issues.
However, as this week’s question aims to discover, this
rather efficient method of deliberative democracy is exclusionary by nature, in
that it favors reason and critique over personal interest, and assumes unity
amongst a population. Thus identity dissonance can occur when an agreed upon
course of action interferes with or violates a principle inherent to one’s identity
integrity. Iris Young proposes a more communicative process of democracy where
she states that the differences, while polarizing, can create the tension
necessary to garner discourse and thus a more inclusive decision. In her words
used to describe this more communicative method, “Its members must have a
commitment to equal respect for one another, in the simple formal sense of
willingness to say that all have a right to express their opinions and points of
view, and all ought to listen” (Young 126).
You very clearly lay out the different types of democracy and how they specifically function, which was very helpful in understanding the basis of Young's argument. I think you hit on the importance of her communicative democracy in contrast to deliberative democracy, where communicative involves providing equal opportunities for all people, no matter their social situation, in contributing to the democratic process of making decisions and policies. I think beyond all members of society having equal respect for one another, Young emphasizes the actual process and types of discussions in communicative democracy as being the most important distinction from both deliberative and interest based democracies. My understanding of deliberative democracy is that it aspires for everyone to have equal standing and respect for one another, but Young states that the type of discussions and how they are carried out divides deliberative and communicative democracy. Instead of assuming everyone has an equal and able voice, communicative advocates for rhetoric, emotionally compelling and personal speech, and storytelling or narrative, which allows the speaker to communicate their social, cultural background and provides a context for their argument. Both of these methods allow all those participating in democracy to approach each discussion or argument with equal status and respect for one another’s voices.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which you relay Young's analysis of the two forms of democracy, interest-based and deliberative, is quite interesting. It seems that the process of interest-based democracy is favorable because it is inclusive, while the end result of deliberative democracy is favorable because it is realistic. Young attempts to combine these two forms of democracy to create the most ideal form with her model of the "communicative process of democracy." I think Young's claim that members must respect each other's opinions is really valid, but she does not acknowledge that willingness to listen can still very likely lead to disagreement. No matter the form of democracy, participants should be open to discourse, but Young's model does not address the issue that arises with the interest-based democracy - it is quite possible no consensus will be reached and that can lead to complete chaos.
ReplyDeleteRen, I briefly read Young’s article and I think you captured her argument eloquently! Though deliberative democracy establishes a series of rules to convey a sense of “fairness” and “equality,” Young reminds her readers that this system is structured so that there can only be one ideology that prevails. I think Young’s argument complements the Hoing piece that our group read and discussed. Hoing claims within our internal society we strive to maintain the majority (or our internal) ideology and for that reason we label those differing from us as political pariahs, forcing us to either withdrawal or conquer. Both Young and Hoing argue that we must embrace difference and ulitize it as a tool to create meaningful and effective discourse.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought your comments were clear and your quotes from Young’s piece were helpful in strengthening your argument. Hopefully, in class, we discuss how the Young and Hoing’s pieces parallel in the ideas of democracy practice and theory.