Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Author | Markus Holdo |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395719837914 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395719837914
Politics
2020, Vol. 40(1) 106 –119
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0263395719837914
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Meta-deliberation:
everyday acts of critical
reflection in deliberative
systems
Markus Holdo
Uppsala University, Sweden
Abstract
The term ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to processes of addressing problems with the way that
conversations about shared concerns – our ordinary deliberations – proceed. This article discusses
the distinction between meta-deliberation and ordinary deliberation and examines three questions
raised by previous arguments about meta-deliberation: (1) what kinds of communication should
count as meta-deliberation, (2) does meta-deliberation always lead to reflective understanding and
improvements in practices of deliberation, and (3) why would deliberative systems need meta-
deliberation? Consistent with the systemic perspective on deliberation, this article suggests an
inclusive view of which acts and sites may contribute to processes of meta-deliberation: it argues
that meta-deliberation faces the same potential problems as ordinary deliberation, such as unequal
power relations and narrow perspectives, and therefore requires careful examination; but when
meta-deliberation works, it provides societies with reflective capacity, which helps them locate
systemic weaknesses. The article concludes by discussing how further studies can help make meta-
deliberation more inclusive in order to serve system-level critical reflection.
Keywords
deliberative systems, reflection, inclusion, meta-deliberation, Mansbridge
Received: 17th November 2018; Revised version received: 21st January 2019; Accepted: 25th February 2019
Questions about meta-deliberation
Problems of exclusion and domination have been central concerns of deliberative theo-
rists ever since the first programmatic arguments were made a few decades ago (e.g.
Bächtiger et al., 2007; Dryzek, 2002; Gutmann and Thompson, 1998; Habermas, 1996;
Mansbridge, 1983). Conversations oriented towards mutual understanding and guided
by norms of public-mindedness and equal respect do not necessarily succeed in includ-
ing all affected persons or all relevant perspectives. Instead, deliberative processes often
become constrained by narrow conceptions of what views are legitimate, what the norms
Corresponding author:
Markus Holdo, Department of Government, Uppsala University, Box 514, Uppsala 751 20, Sweden.
Email: markus.holdo@statsvet.uu.se
837914POL0010.1177/0263395719837914PoliticsHoldo
research-article2019
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial