Violations of basic deliberative norms: The systemic turn and problems of inclusion
| Author | Markus Holdo |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395719887329 |
| Published date | 01 August 2020 |
| Date | 01 August 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395719887329
Politics
2020, Vol. 40(3) 348 –362
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0263395719887329
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Violations of basic
deliberative norms: The
systemic turn and problems
of inclusion
Markus Holdo
Uppsala University, Sweden
Abstract
What is the appropriate way to respond to actions that break basic norms of respectfulness,
sincerity, and public-mindedness? At the same time as this question has become a central concern
for democratic societies, a ‘systemic’ turn has unsettled established solutions for democratic
theorists. From the systemic perspective, it is more important how actions contribute to public
discourse than whether they meet standards of deliberation individually. This article challenges
theorists to consider three additional propositions: (1) to be inclusive and deliberative, the system
and its parts must be mutually supportive; (2) well-performing systems have sufficient reflective
capacity to examine their own deficiencies when violations of basic norms occur; and (3) the
performance of a deliberative system needs to take into account both the frequency of violations
and the reflective qualities of the system’s response. For a well-performing system, violations of
basic norms are opportunities to learn and strengthen the support for spaces of deliberation.
Keywords
critical reflection, deliberation, deliberative systems, inclusion, Mansbridge, Dryzek
Received: 30th May 2019; Revised version received: October 14th 2019; Accepted: 18th October 2019
With growing polarization, resentment, and anger in public discourse, it appears increas-
ingly urgent to ask: what is the appropriate way to respond to behavior that appears not to
meet basic norms of respectfulness, sincerity, public mindedness? Debates on this topic
have a long history in political theory (see Connolly, 2002) and have been particularly
critical for theorists of deliberative democracy (e.g. Fung, 2005; Habermas, 1985;
Stevenson and Dryzek, 2014; Young, 2001). On the one hand, when people’s ways of com-
municating do not meet standards of public reasoning, it becomes more difficult for people
to understand each other’s points of view and gain new insights that can help us take better,
and more widely accepted, decisions (see Bohman, 1998, 2000). On the other hand,
Corresponding author:
Markus Holdo, Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Box 514, 751 20 UPPSALA
Email: Markus.holdo@statsvet.uu.se
887329POL0010.1177/0263395719887329PoliticsHoldo
research-article2019
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial