What is a deliberative system? A tale of two ontologies
| Published date | 01 July 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211034106 |
| Author | Mark Bevir,Kai Yui Samuel Chan |
| Date | 01 July 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article EJPT
What is a deliberative
system? A tale of two
ontologies
Mark Bevir
Department of Political Science, University of California,
Berkeley, USA
Kai Yui Samuel Chan
Department of Political Science, University of California,
Berkeley, USA
Abstract
Deliberative systems theorists have not explained what a deliberative system is. There
are two problems here for deliberative systems theory: an empirical problem of bound-
aries (how to delineate the content of a deliberative system) and a normative problem
of evaluation (how to evaluate the deliberation within a deliberative system). We argue
that an adequate response to these problems requires a clear ontology. The existing
literature suggests two coherent but mutually exclusive ontologies. A functionalist
ontology postulates self-sustaining deliberative systems with their own functional
goals and logics independent of human intentionality. In contrast, an interpretive ontol-
ogy conceives of deliberative systems as the products of the beliefs and actions of the
actors in the relevant practices—deliberative systems derive from human intentionality.
We conclude by showing how these conflicting ontologies lead to different empirical
and normative agendas.
Keywords
Deliberation, deliberative democracy, deliberative system, functionalism, interpretivism,
ontology
Corresponding author:
Kai Yui Samuel Chan, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley,
CA 94720-1950, USA.
Email: samuel_chan@berkeley.edu
European Journal of Political Theory
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14748851211034106
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2023, Vol. 22(3) 445–464
Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. It has turned from a micro-
focus on deliberative forums and mini-publics towards a macro-focus on
deliberative systems that include multiple interconnected deliberative and non-
deliberative practices. This turn aims to connect the ideals of deliberative
democrats with the reality of mass democracy (Chambers, 2012; Floridia, 2017:
322–323). In mass democracies, opinion formation and decision-making do not
take place in a single deliberative forum: opinions form and change gradually
across a range of deliberative and non-deliberative practices. However, although
the systemic turn has brought greater realism to deliberative democracy, it has also
placed new demands on it. Empirically, the systemic turn demands the study of
both the relationships between the practices in a system and the overall conditions
and qualities of the system as a whole. Normatively, the systemic turn demands
that evaluation shift from isolated practices to the system as a whole.
The literature on deliberative systems has not yet addressed the question of
what sort of system a deliberative system is. In this article, we argue that this
lack of ontological clarity creates two problems. The first is the problem of bound-
aries: if deliberative democrats do not know what a deliberative system is, they
cannot specify its boundaries or extension. This problem prevents deliberative
democrats from fully identifying the objects of their studies and evaluations.
The second is the problem of evaluation: if deliberative democrats do not know
what a deliberative system is, they cannot evaluate the system or its parts. This
problem prevents deliberative democrats from explaining the normative force of
their theory and justifying the criteria they use to evaluate systems.
A satisfactory ontological account of a deliberative system should provide plau-
sible and coherent responses to the problems of boundaries and evaluation. In
addition, if it is to be a contribution to deliberative theory, it should derive from
elements of that theory. Indeed, one might hope that it will not only preserve
elements of the existing theory but also open new normative and empirical research
agendas. We thus draw on the existing literature on deliberative systems to recon-
struct two ontologies: a functionalist one and an interpretive one. The functionalist
ontology defines a deliberative system by the functional goals it serves. The inter-
pretive one defines a deliberative system by reference to the interpretations of
intentional agents.
We do not claim that these ontologies appear fully formed in the existing liter-
ature. They are there only as subtexts. We ourselves reconstruct them in a way that
makes them systematic. Nor do we claim that these ontologies exhaust the possi-
bilities. There may be others. We suggest only that these two ontologies best fit the
current literature on deliberative systems, that they are mutually exclusive, and
that they lead to different research agendas.
Systems, boundaries, and evaluations
The systemic turn in deliberative democracy could be described as a set of theories
with internal debates and disagreements. Equally, however, it is a self-conscious
446 European Journal of Political Theory 22(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial