Sanders Against Deliberation

7/29/2019 Sanders Against Deliberation

1/31

Against DeliberationAuthor(s): Lynn M. SandersReviewed work(s):Source: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jun., 1997), pp. 347-376Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191984 .

Accessed: 30/11/2012 13:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.69 on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:47:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191984?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191984?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/31

AGAINSTDELIBERATION

LYNNM. ANDERSUniversityf Chicago

ADMITTEDLY, pposing eliberationeems rrational.' commitmentto deliberationis, after all, a commitmentto finding a way to addressconcerns,resolve disagreements,and overcome conflicts by offering argu-ments supportedby reasons to ourfellow citizens. Deliberativedemocracypromises legitimate-that is, morally ustifiableandrationallyproduced-solutionsto vexing political problems.Especiallywhenthese problemsaredifficult, affording no clear way to arrive at unequivocally satisfactorysolutions,deliberation ecommends tselfbecause t relies onabroadconsid-erationof alternative olutions, ncreasing he likelihood hat heperspectivesheldby all membersof aheterogeneous ommunitywill be givenvoice. Anddeliberations alsoclarifyingandenlightening,highlighting he moral ssuesat stakeinpoliticaldebatesandallowingcitizens to elucidate hese issuesforthemselves.

Argumentson behalf of deliberationcontinue to proliferate,and thissteadystreamof endorsements f deliberation einforces hesupposition hatdeliberationenhancesdemocracy.Democratictheorists now take delibera-tion to be theexemplarypracticeoractivity ordemocrats, ndthey geartheirarguments oward ts realization.Hencedeliberationhas become a standardfortheaccomplishment f democracy:t is whatdemocratic heoristsaim for,ourideal and ouraspiration.Whendemocratic heoristssuggestremodelingourpolitics,it is in thedirectionof making hemmoredeliberative GutmannandThompson1996).

What,then,could bewrongwithdeliberation?Tobegin,onemightsimplybe suspiciousof the nearconsensusamongdemocratic heoristsonits behalf.It isn't clear,afterall, thatthis wide endorsementhas itself emergedthrougha genuinelydeliberativeprocess:democratic heoristsare a selectgroupwhocannotanddo notclaim in anyway to represent heperspectivesof ordinaryPOLMTICALHEORY,ol.25 No.3,June1997347-3760 1997SagePublications,nc.

347

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/31

348 POLMCAL THEORY June 1997

citizens.Although rdinaryitizensconstitutehedemos on whosebehalfargumentsboutdeliberationremade, herecommendationfdeliberationis not, ypically,ustified yarguments,specially otsubstantiverempiri-calones,thatdeliberativeemocracys whatordinaryitizenswould hem-selvesrecommend.2Theabsenceof this(deliberative)ustificationorrecommendingelib-eration oesnotbyitselfmakedeliberationbviously ntidemocratic.ut tdoes,I think,ustifyanexplorationf thepossibilitiesorarguing gainstdeliberation. o that is my enterprise ere.I attempto articulate omereasonswhydeliberationmightnotappealoordinaryitizens,or atleastnot to manyresidentsof the UnitedStates,at least notgiventhewaywelive now.And,correspondingly,suggest hat hese observationsrovidesomereasonswhy deliberationhouldnot necessarily ndautomaticallyappealodemocraticheorists,ither.

THE TROUBLEWITHDELIBERATIONThe deliberativedealmighttroubleproponentsf democracyor anumber f reasons.Foronething, t carries onservativerantidemocraticconnotationssuallyoverlooked y well-intentionedheorists.Appeals odeliberation, will argue,have oftenbeenfraughtwithconnotations frationality,eserve,cautiousness,uietude, ommunity,elflessness,anduniversalism,onnotations hich nfactprobablyndermineeliberation'sdemocraticlaims.Moreseriouslyhan his,however,s thatappealingo

deliberation,rtakingt forgrantedsanappropriateemocratictandard,mayhavea destructiveffect.Democraticheorists avearticulated,nformalerms,heprerequisitesof deliberation;hey have sketchedwhatconditionswould have to beachieved ordeliberationoproceed. oremostmong heseconditionss theachievementf mutual espect: itizenswhodeliberatemustaddress achotherasequalsandacknowledgehisstatusbyofferingeasonable,morallyjustifiable rgumentsoeachother.The careful)rticulationfthese ormalstandards,owever,s a farcryfromanassessment f theprobability fmeetinghem. ntheabsence f suchanassessment, ppealsodeliberationdonothingochallenge nundesirabletatusquo.Most perniciously,ven though he requirementf mutual espect sassumed, otinvestigated,notherxpectationssociatedwithdeliberationis probablyealized n ourpolitical ulture.Somecitizensarebetter hanothersat articulatingheirargumentsn rational,easonableerms.Some



4/31

Sanders AGAINSTDELIBERATION 349

citizens,hen, ppearlreadyobedeliberating,nd, ivenhe ightinkbetweendemocracynddeliberation,ppear lreadyo beactingdemocratically.If we assumethat deliberationcannotproceedwithoutthe realizationofmutualrespect, and deliberationappearsto be proceeding,we may evenmistakenlyecide hatconditions f mutual especthavebeenachieved ydeliberators.n hisway, aking eliberations asignalof democraticracticeparadoxicallyorksundemocratically,iscreditingnseemingly emocraticgroundsheviewsof thosewhoare esslikely opresentheirargumentsnways thatwe recognizeas characteristicallyeliberative.n ourpoliticalculture,hesecitizens re ikely o bethosewhoarealready nderrepresentedin formalpoliticalnstitutions ndwho aresystematically ateriallyisad-vantaged, amelywomen; acialminorities,speciallyBlacks;andpoorerpeople.Myinitialclaimaboutdeliberation'sistorical onnotationsepends na reviewof how andwhypoliticalhinkers aveappealedo it. Thisreviewwill show thatdeliberation as at least a few suspiciousantidemocraticassociations.Mysecondand arger laim,concerningeliberation'soten-tiallycounterproductiveffects,dependsnattentionoparticularactsaboutwhathappenswhenAmerican itizensactually et togethero deliberate.Although hese facts areperhaps isheartening,ookingat whatactuallyhappensndemocraticiscussions,ndnoticingwhen heyseem ogo best,alsosuggestswaystoimprove emocraticiscussionntheUnitedStates.The facts aboutdeliberationn American ettings,at least as I havegatheredhem, how hatwhathappenswhenAmericanitizens alk oeachother s oftenneitherrulydeliberativeorreallydemocratic. his s partly,

butnotonly,becausehematerialrerequisitesordeliberationreunequallydistributed.t spartly,utnotonly,because omeAmericansremore ikelyto bepersuasivehanothers,hat s, to be learned ndpracticednmakingargumentshatwouldberecognized yothers sreasonablenes-no matterhowworthy rtrue heirpresentationsctually re.It is alsobecause omeAmericans reapparentlyesslikely hanothersobelistened o;evenwhentheirargumentsrestated ccordingoconventionsf reason, heyaremorelikely to be disregarded.Althoughdeliberatorswill always choose to disre-gardsome arguments,whenthis disregard s systematicallyassociatedwiththe argumentsmade by those we know alreadyto be systematicallydisad-vantaged,we should at leastreevaluateourassumptionsaboutdeliberation'sdemocraticpotential.Deliberation equiresnotonlyequality nresourcesandtheguarantee f equalopportunityo articulate ersuasiveargumentsbutalsoequality in "epistemologicalauthority,"n the capacityto evoke acknowl-edgementof one's arguments.



5/31

350 POLMCALTHEORYJune1997

Theseare nsidious roblems,oteasilyaddressed ithin heconfines fargumentsbout eliberation,hichdependruciallyntheaccomplishmentby democraticitizensof mutual espect or eachother,but arebereftofevaluationsfwhetherhis sarealistic ossibility. ecause heachievementof mutualrespect s practicallyemote,democraticheorists houldaskwhether rgumentsn behalfof deliberationoanythingobringaboutheachievementf trulydemocratic,r indeed rulydeliberative,iscussions.Perhaps model of democratic iscussionother handeliberation ouldattendmoredirectlyo these nsidious roblems.oIconclude hisessaybysuggestinghatweforgetdeliberationorthetimebeing,and ry oimaginea model for democratic oliticsthat moreplausiblyencouragesmutualrespect-somethinghatadvocates f deliberation,fterall, reallywant.

THELASTINGMARRIAGEOFDELIBERATIONNDDEMOCRACY

Democraticheorists rgue hatdeliberationultivatesdemocracy,orgoodreason.Deliberationasa badside: tsconservativeonnotations,tsunfortunate anifestationsn American ractice.Yetdemocraticheoristsbelievethatdeliberation akesdemocracy regnantwith twodistinctbutrelated ffspring:ncreasedutonomyndanexpandedenseofcommunity.Tocontemporaryheorists,nhancingutonomymeans,n part, ducatingcitizens o consider olicyandbroaderolitical uestions atherhaneavingthesethingsup to a specialized,echnicallynformed lite. Democratictheoristswantdeliberationor everyone,not for some particularepre-sentatives.Theyopposepluralistonceptionsf democracy,speciallytsinterest-groupariants,ecausehey"place opremium npolitical artici-pation"Sunstein 988,1546).So advocatesfdemocraticeliberationant oinvolveordinaryitizensin theprocessof rational ecision-makinghatpluralistseaveto experts.3Sometimes eliberations recommendedor its educationalffects, oritspromiseomake itizens marter,long he inesofMill'ssuggestionn OnLiberty.Forexample,BernardManin aysthat"political eliberationndargumentation.. constitute rocesses f educationnd raining.... theyspreadight.... thepeople ducatehemselves"1987,354).This rainingsnot a simplematter f intellectualmprovement:Onlypublicdeliberationandpolitical ction llowcitizens orealize-both omake ealand o becomeaware f-their dignity ndpowers sresponsiblegents ndudges"PitkinandShumer 982,44).Deliberation,tleast n itsmostpromisingormula-



6/31


tions, eaches itizens oseethings heyhadpreviouslyverlooked,ncludingtheviewsof others,and hereforeo becomebetter itizens.This s clearlythe kindof thingAckermanopes orwhenhesuggests hatbaseprejudiceswill be transformed,ndworthy ntuitionsikehatred f racism indicated,throughationalriticism nddialogue 1980,353).Autonomys a civicorpolitical, ot ndividualistic,roject,nd tisquiteusual ofinddemocraticheorists lsoadvocatingeliberationor tspoten-tial to uncovera communaldentity.Again,thistendency eemsdirectlylinked o thequestforanalternativeo interest-groupiberalism. o, forexample,SheldonWolin,n thefoundingssue of thenow-defunctournaldemocracy,nnouncedhat hestateof affairs tthedawnoftheeightieshadbroughtn acrisisof identity, need ofigureout"whoweareasapeople"(Wolin1981,10).AndCohen ndRogers,whose1983bookOnDemocracybegan"These redarkimes,"ound hat n themidstof a lot ofwhatmightbe calledpolitickingwas a totalabsence f democraticommunity:

Attemptsatcoalition-building roliferate.Debatesandprograms f actionabound.Thinktanks and policy research institutessteadily multiply.New corporatepolitical actioncommittees andprivatenewslettersareborn each day.... But if those who occupy thecommandingheightsof privatepoweraremobilizing heir orces,thosewholive beneaththem are in startlingdisarray .. there is no commonvoice (CohenandRogers 1983,16-17).

Thepursuit f a common oice s specifically osedhereasaremedyo theaccumulationf private owerandspecialnterests.Soin its bestortruestorm,deliberationsaprocess fpolitical iscussionthatexcludesno one. Itimproves ll citizens ntellectually,yheighteningtheir bilityo consider olicyandpolitical roblems;ersonally,y allowingthem o realize heiruntappedapacitiesorobservationnd udgment;ndmorally rcivically,by teachinghemabout hepolitical oncerns f othercitizens ndby encouraging utualespect.Moderndvocates fdemocraticdeliberationim to developcommunalensibilitieswithoutrequiringpotentially ppressive ducationn civic virtue.They aspire o replaceafacelessandpossiblycorruptechnocraticlite with nformed,onsiderateand ust,reasoningndreason-givingitizens.

REASONSFORA DIVORCEEven on thistruest,bestversion,deliberationtillprovidesno solutionfor,andpossibly xacerbates,hehardest roblemordemocrats,nd here-



7/31

352 POLMCALTHEORY/une1997

foremissesbyits own standards.mericanemocraticheoristswhowantto discouragelitism,expand itizenparticipation,mproveheabilityofcitizens o discusspolicyquestions, ndevaluate olitical andidates,ndbeforeall this,heighten itizenrespect or eachother,need to takeoneproblem sprimary.hisproblems howmoreof thepeoplewhoroutinelyspeak ess-who, through ariousmechanisms r accidents f birthandfortune, re eastexpressiven andmostalienatedrom onventionalmeri-canpolitics-might takepartand be heardand howthose whotypicallydominatemightbemade o attend o theviewsof others.Contemporaryemocraticheoristsre, o besure,awareof theserious-ness of thisproblem f disenfranchisement.o, forexample,whenCassSunsteinmakes hecasethat he bestthingabout epublicanhoughts itscommitmento deliberativeemocracy,e hastens o pointout what'sbadabout t:deliberation,e says,cannotneatlybe separatedromrepublicanpractices f exclusion f women,Blacks,and hose ackingpropertySun-stein1988,1539).BernardManin rgueshatdeliberations worthpraisingbecausea trulydeliberativerocessssuingnlegitimate oliticaldecisionsutterly equiresheparticipationf "all"1987,esp.352, 359).Knight ndJohnson arefully mphasizeheimportancef "freeandequalaccess todeliberativerenas"1994).Fishkin'secent roposalo revitalizeAmericandemocracyhrough "deliberativepinion oll"makes qual onsiderationofeveryone'sreferencesnessential reconditionodemocracy1991,30).Further,omedemocraticheorists otonlymentionheimportancefformalequalization f access but also advocate tructuralr economicreforms o guaranteehat all citizenshave the resources-time,money,education,killatarguing-requiredordeliberation.or nstance,CohenandRogers(1983)notice that"theabsenceof material eprivations apreconditionor free andunconstrainedeliberation"p. 157) and that"materialnequalitiesansubvert structuref freeandequalpublicdelib-erationby translatingntosharplyunequal apacitiesorpoliticalaction"(p. 158).Theyurgetheelimination f gross materialnequities nd alsorecommendreepubliceducation ndstate-financedhildcare.Educationensures hedevelopmentf deliberativeapacities, ndchildcareon thisviewguaranteeshatwomen anparticipatenpolitics fter heyhave earnedhow o deliberateygoing o school. ohnsonndKnight ave ystematicallyaddressedheseproblemsndattemptedo specify he(formal, otinstitu-tional)nature f theremedies o inequity hatmustprecededeliberation(1996).Theseacknowledgementsf theprerequisiteso deliberation,ndtheseattemptsoinstilldeliberation ithaparticipatorynd nclusivempulse, refarfromtrivial.They n fact mustbe made f deliberations to qualifyas



8/31

SandersAGAINST ELIBERATION353

democratic.Yettheydo not,I think, ullyaddress roblems f exclusion,because here s too greata disjunctureetween he hardest roblemshatdemocracy's roponents ustgrapplewithand heformalityf theacknow-ledgments ndrecommendationshatdemocraticheoristsmake.Somecriticshave noticed he manifestationf thisdisjuncturen theabstractalkof democraticheorists.ndeed,hisabstractionaybeabsolutelynecessaryfor proponents f deliberativedemocracy, ecause acknow-ledgment f thehardestroblems,hats,thesystematicisregardfascrip-tivelydefinedroupsuchaswomen ndBlacks,would iolate hedeliberativetenet o attendotheforceof argumentatherhan he nterests fparticulargroups Phillips1995,155ff.). Indeed,democraticitizensas describednthesetheories eemto live on another lanet quite iterally,n the caseofAckerman 980):theyare devoidof race, class,andgenderand all thebenefits nd iabilities ssociatedyAmericans ith hese eatures. bstrac-tionfromtheseascriptiveharacteristics-theirisregard-clearly ssistsattemptsoenddiscriminationasedupon hem;aswell, however, bstrac-tiondeprivesheorists f awayto notice ystematicatternsf exclusion.A deeper,moredifficultproblemhanabstractionurks.Even f demo-craticheoristsotice he nequitiesssociated ithclassand aceandgenderand, orexample,ecommendqualizingncomeandeducationo redistrib-ute the resources eeded ordeliberation-evenf everyone andeliberateand earnhow to givereasons-somepeople's deasmaystill countmorethanothers.nsidiousrejudices ay ncline itizens o hear omeargumentsand not others. mportantly,hisprejudicemaybe unrecognizedy thosecitizenswhoseviewsaredisregardedswellasbyother itizens.

Proponentsf deliberationreespeciallybadlyequippedo address hisproblem.Theydepend nopenargumentsgainst rejudiceo overcomet,andonthesusceptibilityf prejudiceo reason.Notonlydotheybelieve ntheexistence f settingswherenothingmattersxcept oranidea's ntellec-tualforceand tscommunaltility, s inHabermas'sdealspeech ituation(Habermas1962]1992;Calhoun 992)orinAckerman'snsistence hataspeaker'superiorityanneverbe nvoked s a reasonoprefer n dea 1980,4, 11); heyalsoexpectprejudiceso bechallengedndeliberativeettingsand or others o"faceup" o them GutmannndThompson 996).Whendisregardased nprejudiceoesunrecognizedyboth hosewhoare ubjecttoitand hosewhoareprejudiced,rejudicesannot ossiblybe challenged.Prejudice ndprivilegedo not emerge n deliberativeettingsas badreasons, nd heyarenotcounteredy goodarguments.heyare oo sneaky,invisible,andperniciousor thatreasonable rocess.So worrying boutspecifyingwhatcountsasa good argument, rtrying o enhance eason-giving either via the formulation f betterrules andprocedures r by



9/31

354 POLITICALHEORYJune1997

providinghetime,money, ndeducationecessaryo become responsibledeliberativeitizen,doesnotengage omeof themostserious hallengesothepossibility f achieving emocraticeliberation.omepeoplemightbeignoredno matter owgoodtheir easons re,no matter owskillfully heyarticulatehem,andwhen hishappens, emocraticheorydoesn'thaveananswer, ecause necannot ounter perniciousroup ynamicwithagoodreason.Sometimes, ivingreasons sn'tanythingike therightproject ndsuggestinghat hedisregardedrgueagainst rejudicer discriminationsoffensiven andof itself.4

THEANTIDEMOCRATICAPPEALOF DELIBERATION

Although e is a somewhat redictablearget, osephSchumpetereatlyexemplifies hreeof the time-honoredhargesagainstdemocracy. hesecharges,whichpersistn different egrees o thepresentday,arethat hemassesareboundo getout of controlwhen heygettogether,hat heyareincapablefrationalrgument,nd hat heycannot eebeyondheirnarrowselfishconcerns.For thefirst,Schumpeternvokedhe observationsf LeBon, who,onSchumpeter'seading,ucceedednshowing

therealities f human ehavior henunderhe nfluence fagglomeration-in articularthesudden isappearance,na state fexcitement,f moral estraintsnd ivilizedmodesof thinking ndfeeling, hesudden ruptionf primitivempulses,nfantilismsndcriminalropensities-hemade s facegruesomeacts hat verybodynewbutnobodywished o see andhethereby ealta serious low o thepicture f man'snaturewhichunderliesheclassical octrine fdemocracynddemocraticolkdoreboutevolutions.(Schumpeter1942]1976,257)

Lowly passions,citizens' ack of restraintwhenset loose in public-notanythingo loftyorprincipleds a desire orautonomy,orexample-arethe truesourcesof inspirationorthegreatdemocraticevolutions. ublicassembly eems,onSchumpeter'siew,arecipeorextractingnly hebasestperformancesf whichhumans recapable.Inaddition,ccordingoSchumpeter, ostcitizensaren't hat mart. ortheaverage itizen,"meressertion,ften epeated,ountsmore han ationalargument."chumpeteradnoshortagef catch-phrasesorconveying isgeneralackof esteem or theintelligencef themany.Theaverage itizen"isimpatient f longorcomplicated rgument,"ossesses"weak ational



10/31


processes,"s "not allthere.'" "People,"chumpeternnounces,cannotbe carriedup the ladder." inceaveragehumans relikelyto yieldmorereadilyto prejudice ndmanipulationhan to rationalargument, ot tomention heinvitationo crudeexcess that s riskedwhenthey assemble,Schumpeteroncludeshat hetypical itizen"drops own o a lower evelof mental erformancessoonas he enters hepoliticalield.Heargues ndanalyzesn a waywhichhe wouldreadily ecognize s infantilewithin hesphereof his realinterests.He becomesa primitive gain" Schumpeter[1942] 1976,257,262).Finally, chumpeterlsowasconvincedhat verageitizens ouldbarelydiscerna commonnterest.f politicalmatters esembledheconcerns fdaily ife in thehomeorinbusiness,heremightbe somehope orminimalcomprehensionf civicaffairs-so localpoliticsmightbe lessafflictedbythe gnoranceftheaverageitizen.ButSchumpeterllows hat"even herewe find a reduced owerof discerningacts,a reduced reparednesso actupon hem,a reducedenseofresponsibility."ndwhen t comes o nationaland nternationalffairs,here s nobasis orhopinghatcitizensmight eeanythingike a commongood,because heseaffairs"lacka directandunmistakable ink with . . . privateconcerns."Citizens aren'tcapable ofapprehendingny nterest eyondone thatmmediatelyndobviously on-cerns hemselvesSchumpeter1942]1976,260, 261).It is quitecommon oput Schumpeter'somplaintsboutdemocracynperspective y recallinghe context n which he wrote,withits specifichistorical rovocations.or nstance,DavidHeld, n making he point hatSchumpeterashardly noriginalhinker,emarkshatSchumpeter'sighly ritical ccount f moreparticipatorychemes f democracy..echoed losely heopinions f manyWesternommentatorsndpoliticianst thetimewhofelt "excessive"articipation ightproducehemobilizationf thedemoswithhighlydangerousonsequences:mongheexperiencesppennostn theirmindswasno doubt heBolshevik evolutionnd hemass allieswhich ignaledheadvent fNaziGermany.Held1987,165)

Credit orsensitivityo the historicalessonsof massexcessis frequentlyextended o the American olitical cientistswho followedand in somemeasure choedSchumpeter,uchas theauthors f Voting Berelson, azar-feld,andMcPhee1954)andRobertDahl 1956).YettheantidemocraticentimentshatSchumpeterxemplifies rebothtoo old-fashionedndtoopersistento be linkeddirectly o the historyoftwentiethenturyEurope. chumpeter'siewsof themassesweresolidly nplace nSirPhilipSidney'sArcadia,hebestsellingbook,after heBible, n



11/31

356 POLITICALTHEORY June 1997

seventeenth enturyEngland Herzog1989). Sidneysketchesa zealousmultitudencapablefanyconstantpinion, othatthemercyofmanipulat-iverulers nd n needof skillfuleadership.here's ohopeof a discussionof commonnterestsnSidney's ccount f democraticssembly:

But whenthey beganto talk of theirgriefs,never bees made such a confusedhumming:the town dwellersdemandingputtingdown of imposts;the countryfellows, laying outof commons:some would have theprincekeep his court n one place, some in another.All cried out to have new counselors,but whenthey shouldthinkof any new, they likedthem as well as any otherthatthey could remember.... At length they fell to directcontrarieties.Sidney 1984, 383)

Not only predating im,views like Schumpeter'sollowedAmericanpoliticalscience intothe sixties, appearing,or instance,n AlmondandVerba's heCivicCulture1963).Similarly, hilipConverse'suestor deasamongheAmericanmasspublic, eadinghim hroughevisions ndrefine-mentsof surveynstrumentation,oncluded ith he amenthat"what eedsrepairs not he[survey]tembut hepopulation"1963,176).Theviews hatSchumpeterublishedn 1942werehardlynovel;neitherwasSchumpeterthe endof them.I want osuggesthat heappealodeliberationasofferedomethingfanall-purposeolution o eachof theproblems amedby Schumpeterndothers.Paradoxically,hissolutionssatisfyingo both litistsanddemocrats.Becauseof itsconnotationsfcautiousnessndorder-becausedeliberationis by definition othasty-it establishes standardo invoke ncomplaintsaboutunruly rexcessivebehavior. eliberationlso connoteshoughtful-ness. Appealsto deliberation mount o demands or a certainkindofdiscourse n democraticolitical ettings: easonable,oresighted,teady,andorientedoacommon, otsectarian, roblem.The aristocraticorantidemocratic)se of these standards asbeentoclaim thatthe manyfail to be deliberate:hatis, they are too hasty,orinsufficientlyhoughtful,speciallyaboutproblems otof immediateon-cernto them.Butdemocratslso subscribeo them:manydemocratsavetriedto meet the aristocraticbjectionso democracy y adoptingheseobjectionss standardsorhowdemocraticolitical iscussionshould angeor be restricted.So democratsndup saying hat hemany houldbeinvolved npoliticsbut that heyshoulddeliberatebout t. Bothdefenders ndenemiesof themasseshave advanced eliberation s theperfectantidote o democracy.Democracy'staunchupportersonot celebratet asa place or themanyto gather ndexpress ntemperateiews: nstead, ager o offsetcriticismsof democracys short-sightednd neptmobrule, hey suggesthow it can



12/31


be mademore ational,low-paced,ndcommunallyriented.nthe ollow-ing sections, explore heresonance etweenapparentlyonservative ndapparentlyemocraticiscussions fdeliberation.

DELUBERATIONNDTHEAVOIDANCEOF INTEMPERANCEND NEPTITUDEEdmund urkewasavociferous dvocate f a more ranquiloliticsand

the authorof some of the morecolorfulmagesof popular xcessin thehistoryof political hought.Burke oundthe FrenchNationalAssemblyanything utdeliberate;nfact,heconsideredt a sham,playingthefarceof deliberationithas littledecency sliberty. heyact ikethecomediansfa fairbefore riotous udience;heyactamidsthetumultuousriesofamixedmobofferociousmen,andof womenostto shame,who,accordingo their nsolentancies,direct, ontrol, pplaud,xplode hem, nd ometimesmixand ake heir eatsamongstthem,domineeringverthemwitha strangemixture f servilepetulancendproud,presumptuousuthority.Burke1790]1987,60)

AlthoughBurkewas hardlya democrat's est friend,he didn'tfind themultitudentirelywithout edemption:f it could ustslowdown, t mightnot be completely utlandish.Themultitude,or themoment,s foolish,"he said,butonlyfor themoment, whenheyactwithout eliberation"asquotedn Pitkin1967,181).Unfortunately,owever,hough e admittedhattheywereendowedwithdeliberativeapacities, urke onsideredhedelib-erate enseofthemultitudeooremote nd oo ong ncomingo make tsafefor hem odirect heir wnpolitics.Betterhatheyavoid heoverstimulatingatmospheref the politicalassemblyand leavepoliticsto someone essinclinedo rashness.Burkes,ofcourse, heexemplaryonservative.utself-styled emocratsalsosketchdemocraticxcess nlanguagehat loselyapproximatesis.TheAmericanoliticalcientistDonaldDowns, orexample, choesBurken hisaccount f thepolitical xtremismurroundingttempts y radicaleministstopassantipornographyegislationnMinneapolisnd ndianapolis. ownsreports hat"manyknowledgeableeadersexpressed trongreservationsabout he lack of deliberation,heone-sidedness,ndthesurreal enseofmoral mergencyhatprevailed"nMinneapolis.ndescribinghehearingsonpornographyeldbytheCityCouncil,Downs,both n his ownwordsandinquoting thers, efers o the "antics"f supportersf theantipornographyordinance,heir"emotionalism,"heir"rant nd ave" sopposedo "precise



13/31

358 POLITICALHEORY/ une1997

thinking,"heir"hysteria,"nd the way the activists"applauded,ooed,hissed,andcried."And nfact,Downs aysthata senseofmoral mergencyandone-sidednessre"preciselyhequalitieshat hepoliticallymature ndtolerantocietyaspireso tame"Downs1989,66, 82-3,86-7, talicsadded).Tobeclear,hepointhere s notabout heextent o whichDonaldDownsdecries estrictionsnpornography.nstead,tis thatbothDownsandotherswhoseviewshe reportsondemnheantipornographyctivists y sayinghattheywere, nnosmallmeasure,nsufficientlyeliberate. nd houghDowns(1989)makeshiscondemnationnthenameofdemocracyforexample, esaysthat"the xtreme ositionsakenduring.. thenewattack npornog-raphyhavedemeanedhequality fpublicdiscourse.. and eopardizedhequalityof democratic ebate"p. xvii),his appealso deliberationlearlyresonatewith Burke's onservativemphasis n the needfor containmentand he avoidancef excess.Unqualifiedistrust f theself-control ndreasonablenessf themanymayseem outof place n ourrelatively emocraticge,but ajudiciouslyexpressed kepticisms notat allforeignomodern olicy hinkers.Worriesabout hecontradictionetweendeliberationnddemocracy,boutpublicdiscussions pinningntochaos,areregarded s legitimate oncerns orpolicymanagers. hetaskof thesebureaucratsasbecome,onthe modernAmericaniew,not ustthemanagementf publicpolicyandpublic ssuesperse,but hemanagementf thepublicdiscussiontself.Forinstance,more hana thirdof theessaysin a collection ditedbyRobertReich,The Powerof PublicIdeas, areexplicitlydevoted o thequestionof how policy makersmightdeveloppublic debateon policymatters.Butit'sclear hat his is trickybusiness, venforthosestudents fpublicpolicy,ikeReich,whoclearlyndorsehegoalofdemocraticnvolve-ment.A certainwariness ccompaniesllof Reich's ecommendationshatpublicmanagersring olicymatters nderhepublicpurview. eichwarns:"public eliberationilltakeup nordinateimeandresources.. and t caneasilycycleoutofcontrol"Reich1988,154).Evenwell-intentionedublicmanagerseed oknow usthowmessy hings anbecome.Closelyaffiliatedwiththeobjectionhat hemassesareinclined o beoverwhelmedymobpsychologynthepolitical ssemblys the worry hattheyaren'tufficientlyationalothink traight. his oo is anold-fashionedobjection. orexample,ntheseventeenthentury,irThomas opeBlountannouncedhat "thenumerousabble"were "butbrutes n theirunder-standing. . havingnothing ut heiroutsidesojustify heir itles o ration-ality" as quotednThomas 983,43-4).But heviewhasnotentirely adedfrom hescene.Notsolongago,Charles indblom asnearly sunflattering



14/31


asSirThomas: most eoplewantpolicymaking enerallyobe democratic.Buttheyalsowant t to beintelligent"Lindblom980,6).Theideathatdeliberationhouldbe restrictedo experts-to thosepar-ticularly quippedwith the skills for rationaldiscourse-is an idea thatpervades thermodem heories hatat leastformallypurporto be demo-cratic. f themassesare acking,heir rue nterests anbestbepursued ysomeonebetterequipped t managing oliticalaffairs han heyare.Thesecond chapterof C. B. MacPherson'sTheReal Worldof Democracyis along attemptojustify heideathat he"vanguardtate . . maybe calleddemocratic":f the masses hemselvesxhibitno tastefor thestruggleorhumanequality,hen an elite groupmaydirect hemto it, pursuinghepeople's rue nterests etter han heythemselves an(MacPherson965,22).An alternativeo ruleby experts s, however, vailableo democrats.fthe massesarelacking, hey mightbe improved.Andit maybe exactlyinvolvementn publicaffairs hatwill educate hemto thecapacitiesorcitizenship. hemostfamous xemplarf theeducative ffectsof politicaldeliberations Mill.Although e wassuspicious nough faverageitizensto suggest n Representativeovernmenthat theirvotes shouldbe out-weighedby theirbetter-educatedellows,Mill still located omeupliftingpotentialnpoliticaldiscourse,or nstancenOnLiberty.Averagepeoplecan be improvedn a number f ways through heirinvolvementn politics.Notonly might heydevelopbasiccompetency tcitizenship,heyalsoare ikelyto becomebetterhumanbeings,acquiringboth individualautonomy nda sense of common nvolvement.Manycontemporaryemocratsxtend hishope o allcitizens:heywant veryoneinvolvednpolitics,but heyalsowanteveryone o bedeliberate bout t.

DELIBERATIONOREVERYONEModemdemocraticheoristswantpublicdeliberationo be commonntwoways.Theyhope hatallcitizenswilldeliberateogether, ecause heir

activityofparticipatingnadiscussion f common roblemshould nspireasenseofautonomy.nd, ncontrastoantidemocrats,ikeSirPhillipSidneyandJosephSchumpeter,ho doubt heaverage itizen'sability o compre-hendanythingutaprivatenterest,modemdemocraticheoristselieve hisbroader rientation an be reachedby the massesandrecommendwideinvolvementnpolitical eliberations a course o it.Publicdiscussions recommon ormodemdemocraticheoristsnasecond ense, hen, n terms f



15/31


theirsubjectmatter r orientation. normof findinga commonvoice, ofresurrectingome form of a communalnterest,pervades ontemporarydemocraticheory.Including veryonen thepursuit f a common nterest ridentityeemsdemocratic:t'sagoalfounded nexpanded articipation,nd t containsheaspirationhat omething orthwhile-asenseofempowermentnda stakein the community-willcomeout of thisparticipation.etthisdemocraticaimcarries ertain ntidemocraticmplications.oththepursuit f a com-monvoiceand he vehicle-deliberationoreveryone-used n thatpursuitmaybefundamentallyntagonisticoimportantemocraticims.There reprobablyimits otheextento which veryoneandeliberateogether, hichI will discuss ater.But thepursuit f a common oiceitselfis, somewhatparadoxically,n exclusiveaim.Althoughmodern emocraticheorists idnotdecide ofocuson a communaldentity ecausehey houghthemassesneeded pecialurgingo seebeyondheirnarrow nd elfishconcerns,n theend this focusendsupresonatingwith conservativendictments f masspolitics npotentiallyroubling ays.WhenJaneMansbridgeefinesdeliberation,he alsoreveals hecontem-porarydemocraticinclination toward the pursuitof commonality.Mansbridge, owever,s careful o allow for a form of deliberationhatadvocateshearticulationf difference: eliberation ay"shapehecharac-terof thosewhoengagenit,in thedirectionf morehabituallyecognizingconflictsof interest."f patterns f oppressionmake t unlikely hatsomegroupswillsucceednarticulatinghesedifferences,heyneed o retreatromthemoregeneraldiscussion nddeliberatemong hemselves,o discovertheir trueinterests.Ultimately, owever,commonalitys the goal: "thepresence f others ncourageswe'ratherhan I' hinking....whenasocietyneeds odiscouragendividualelf-interestndencourageltruism, elibera-tion npublicwill oftenserve hatend" Mansbridge991,7-8).Othercontemporaryheorists hareMansbridge'secognitionhattheprojectof mutualdeliberation eedsto preserve omespacefor acknow-ledging onflictsanddifferences.HannaPitkin,or nstance, ointsoutthatdistributiveustice-presumably ne of the aimsof deliberation-requiresacknowledgingndividualelves nthecommunityPitkin1981).PitkinandShumernotonly acknowledgehepossibilityof conflict ndemocratic iscussionsbut consider onflict ntegralo them:"conflict-handledndemocratic ays,withopenness ndpersuasion-iswhatmakesdemocracywork,what makes for the mutualrevisionof opinionsandinterest"Pitkinand Shumer1982, 47; see also GutmannndThompson1996).Yetclearly here'sa priority ere,anexpectationf arrival tsomekindof consensus. pecialnterestsre o berevised,modified, rshifted n



16/31


the nameof discoveringomethingommon.naddition,ommonife notonlyemergesn deliberationutis expected o assist t. CharlesLarmore,alongwith JohnRawls,suggests hatdisagreements aybe resolvedorbypassedwhen citizens can refer to the "beliefs hey still share"or to"commonround"Larmore996,referringoRawls1971).Pitkin andShumer,Mansbridge,ndLarmore,epresent ttemptsbycontemporaryemocraticheoristso acknowledgeonflictanddifferencewithina broaderrojectouncover,ndrelyupon,acommunalrientation.Theseapproaches,owever, arrya risk thatparticularerspectives ndinterestswill beeffaced, speciallynthe nterests f minoritiesroppressedgroups.Neither erspectiveuggestsa waytoidentifywhenorif particularinterestshouldbepublicly onored. eitheruggests standardordecidingwhen hecommunitys a wholemustattendoveryparticularerspectives,or whether uchattention asanyplace ndeliberation.Yetsurelythereareoccasionswhendemocratic ssemblies houlddonothing ike pursue he commongoodbut instead hould ust listenandrespond o particularomplaints.The testimonyof JapaneseAmericansrelocatedduringWorldWar I beforeCongresswas, forexample, uch amoment.The irstmajor roblemwith hedemocraticursuitf acommunalorientationhrougheliberations thisriskofdiscreditingarticularnterests.Oneof themorepromising pproacheso thinking bouthonoring ar-ticularityomes romacknowledgingheneed ordemocratsolistenas wellas to talk in theirdeliberations.enjaminBarber nnounceshis need inStrongDemocracy:

Theparticipatoryrocess fself-legislationhat haracterizestrong emocracyttemptsto balance dversaryolitics y nourishinghemutualisticrtoflistening. Iwill isten"means othestrong emocratot hat willscanmyadversary'sositionorweaknessessandpotentialrade-offs,or ven asaminimalist ight hink)hat will olerantlyermithim osaywhatever e chooses. tmeans, ather,Iwillputmyselfn hisplace, willtry ounderstand,willstrain o hearwhatmakesusalike, will listen ora commonrhetoricvocative f a common urposer a common ood. Barber984,175)Yetwhat s acknowledgedythelistener s onlywhatcanbeincorporated,what s identifiablyimilar.Whilewhat s different, istinctive, nique, runcommonmaybearticulated,t is not,onthemodeloflistening etailed yBarber,ttendedooracknowledged.referredttentionowhat's ommonincreasesherisksofoutrightenial f theperspectivesfminorities.ftheseperspectives reunsettling, iscomfiting,r if members f the dominantgrouphavean interestnignoringhem, hen heriskscontainednseekingacommon oice ncrease. orexample,Whiteeminists ave ended o thinkin termsof a generic ategory f woman, napproach hichmayusefully



17/31


encourageome ormofsolidarityutalsodeniesWhitewomen'somplicitywithracism.Thispointhasemerged learly n the criticisms hatBlackfeminists avemade f theuniversalizingendenciesnWhite eministheoryandpolitics Smith1982;hooks1981;JosephandLewis1981;Dill 1983;Spelman 988;Collins1990).Given he difficulties facknowledgingndcrediting articularnterestsin themidstofa broad ursuitfcommonality,t is notsurprisingofind hatdemandingonorof a highervalue hanoneselfcan also work o discreditsocialmovementsorged roundheparticularnterests foppressedroups.Thelanguageusedby AlbertMartin, husband bandonedn his wife'spursuitof her own individualityndthe author f One Man, Hurt is anextreme xample:Martin omplains f "theenshrinementf individuality,thefreedom f self,at theexpenseofmarital nionandsocialcompromise"(quotedn Klatch1987,128).When someone ike Martincalls for socialcompromise,we readilyidentifyhisappealwithanattemptoresurrectstateofaffairs haracterizednotonly byunitybutalsobydominance nd nequality. etsuchanappealis notreadilydistinguishableromostensiblymoremoderate erspectives(compare ellahet al. 1985).Insettingswhere herearegross nequitiesnpowerandstatus, alling orcompromisemaybe perilously lose to sup-pressinghechallengingerspectivesfmarginalizedroups. uch uppres-sion,when toccurs,s notdemocratic. ndavoidingtrequires nability onoticewhich ndividualsegularlyavemorepower hanothers, ndwhoseperspectives egularlydominate.The appeal o democratic eliberationdoesn't,at eastby itself,provide wayto takenoticeofand espondosuchimbalances.Learningo deliberatenAmericamightbeinseparablerom ndoctrina-tion in familiar outines f hierarchynddeference, ecause he settingswhereAmericans eliberate ren't solated rom status nequalities. heextentto which theseconcernsaretroublingwill be clearer ollowingareviewof someof theapparentactsaboutdeliberationollected n socialscientific studiesof juries.

THEPOSSIBILITIES ORDELIBERATIONIN THE UNITEDSTATESThequestion f whether emocratsanachievedemocraticoals hroughdeliberation aybeaddressedylooking thowdeliberationctuallyeemstoproceednsettingswhereAmericanitizensalk oeachother,ace oface.



18/31


Status nequalitiesndregular atternsf socialoppressionmight ntrudewhenAmericans eliberateufficientlyo makedemocraticoals,suchasenhancing ommunity ndautonomy,emoteandunlikely.Depending nhow perniciousheseproblems re, hey maypersist venwheneveryoneknowshow to deliberatendhas thetime,money,and nformationor it.Promotingroadparticipationndemocratic iscussionsmayrequiremorethanguaranteeinghematerialrerequisiteso deliberationrsuggestinghepursuit f a common oice.If American olitics s ever consideredeallydemocratic,t is in theinstitution f thejury: uriesaresupposedo capturewhat'sbest aboutAmericanemocracy.When ndividualitizens articipaten theadministra-tionofjustice, aw seems essremote,essmagisterial. itizenparticipationhelpssecure hereputationf legal nstitutionss at leastpartlybuttressedbypopularovereignty.nduriesalsoseema bulwarkfindividualiberties,since urorsare nclinedo fendforthosewhostandaccused.ThemassiveempiricaltudyofAmericanuriesbyKalven ndZeiselcomparederdictsdelivered y uriesn criminalrials othedeterminationsudgeswouldhaverendered adthe casesbeenheardwithouturies.Almost our-fifthsf thetime,udgesanduriesagreed, utwhen heydiffered,urorsweremoreikelythan udgesto findin favorof the defendantKalvenand Zeisel 1966).Further,ecause itizensare nvolvedntheadministrationfjustice,albeitthroughhelens of a particularase, theyareencouragedo considerhequestions efore hem romabroader,ocialperspectivend o leaveaside,at least emporarily,heirmmediate ndpersonaloncerns.Participationn ajuryseems o involveexactly heskillsandcapacitiesthatdemocratsopeAmericansmightpracticen otherettings:hedelibera-tivejury s supposedo becomposed ndconsiderate,xactlynot anangrymob. In thejury,citizenscall on theirrationalacultiesand consideracommon, rat least mpersonal,otpersonal, roblem. uries ppearo besomethingike schools ordemocrats,sTocquevilleuggested heywere.Butof courseTocqueville adparticularessons n mind,not necessarilythoseadmired ycontemporaryheorists.TocquevilleonsideredAmeri-cans in needof reminders boutstatusanddeference,whichhe thoughtwere ideallycommunicatedhrough he mechanismof the civil jury.Unlike criminaltrials,whereTocquevilleanticipatedmodernsocialscience by suspectingthatjurorswouldsympathizewithdefendants,civil trials on his view could encourage uries to look to judges forexpertiseandguidance. Andparticipation njuries was further aud-able, in Tocqueville's yes,because ach uror"comesnto daily contactwith hebest-educatedndmost-enlightenedembersf theupper lasses."



19/31


Tocqueville houghtawyerscountedas a "classapart"romthepeople,resembling Egyptianriests,being,astheywere, heonlyinterpreter[s]fan occult cience"Tocqueville 969,275, 267).AlthoughTocquevilleoundmuch o recommendn thehumbling spectsof thecourtroom,e assumed basically omogenousury nferiornclassand tatus o udgesandawyers.Hedidn't xplorehepossibilityhat itizensmightdefer oeachother.Yetcontemporaryocialscientific vidence ug-geststhatexactly hathappens,n waysthatareentirelyunsurprisingndpredictable iven the inequalitiesamiliarn the broaderociety.WhenAmericansssemblen uries, heydonot eavebehind hestatus, ower, ndprivilegeshat heyhold n theoutsideworld.Most urydeliberationseginwiththeselection f group eader, fore-person.Farmoreoften hannot,theperson electeds aWhitemalewithacollege degree.Postgraduateork,a high-statusccupation,ndpreviousjury experienceurther nhancehechancesof beingselected.Women rechosen oheaduriesmuch essfrequentlyhan heir epresentationn uriessuggests heyshouldbe(HansandVidmar 986).Gender, acial, ndeconomic rivilege onotdetermineelection sjuryleader n a director immediateense,however.nstead,hey increase helikelihood f behavior hat eads o selectionasheadof the ury.Speakingfirstand itting t heheadof the ablencreaseheprobabilityfbeing hosenas foreperson,ndhigh-statusmenengage n thesebehaviorsmoreoften(HansandVidmar 986).Anaccount f thewaythat he uryforemanwasselected in the trial of John De Loreancaptures hese dynamics:"Thefirstitemof businesswas to selecta groupeader.VernLahr, former ighwaypatrolman,mentionedheissue first andstoodcapablyat theblackboardasking or nominations. otsurprisingly,ewas chosen orthe ob"(HansandVidmar, 986,16).Anothermportantnhancer f thechance o beselected sforepersonsa claimof somekindofprior xperience,houghnotnecessarilyxperiencewithjuryservice.In a studyof mockjuries, PhoebeEllsworth nd hercolleagues found that, thoughalmosttwo-thirdsof thejurorsstudied werewomen,men werechosento headjuriesnearly90 percentof the time.Ellsworthreports hat

Forten of theeighteen uries,theprocessof foreman election canbe summedup by thephrase"choosea man who says he has experience." . . Since we knew which of oursubjectshadactuallyserved on real uries,we were able to findoutwhether he peoplechosen as foremanwere actuallymorelikely to have hadprior uryexperience that theother urors.Theywerenot moreexperienced:39 percentof the foremenhadserved on



20/31


juries, scomparedith36percentf theotherurors, n nsignificantifference.hus,a foremans someonewho claimsexperience, otnecessarilyoneonewhohasit.(Ellsworth 989,213)

Selection f the orepersonncapsulatesatternsepeatedhroughhecourseof the ury'sdeliberations.tudies onductedver he ast ourdecades aveconsistentlyeinforcedhebasicfinding hatmentalkmore njuries; uryleaders, lreadymore ikely o bemen,arealsoinclinedoparticipate orethanotherurymembersn deliberation.venwhen heforemansexcludedfrom hecalculationsf whogenerallyalksmostduring eliberations,enstilldominatehediscussion y significantmountsHans ndVidmar 986;Marsden 987;Hastie,Penrod, ndPennington983).Thesimple act hatmen alkmore hanwomennjurydeliberationsightgive pauseto democratsnclined o holdstrictly o a standard f equalparticipationn groupdiscussions.f it's demonstrablehatsome kindsofpeopleroutinely peakmore hanothers ndeliberativeettings, sitis, thenparticipationsn'tequal,andonedemocratictandardasfallen.Butdemo-cratsneedn't ive upsoeasily.Onemight elinquishhe standardf strictlyequalparticipationnd ay nstead hataslongas mostor allviewsavailableto thegrouparesomehow xpressed ndconsidered,t doesn'tmatterwhosayswhator whether omepeople alkmore hanothers.Yetstudiesofjuries uggest hatwhether nidea s expressednthefirstplace,whether t is apprehendedy thegroup,andwhether t prevails ndeliberations,lldepend n whetherhe ideahasa talkative romoter.orinstance,hemerepropensityo talkalotappearsoincreasehechanceshatonewill be viewedaspresentingompelling rguments.tudies fjuriesandother mallgroupsndicatehatndividuals hospeakhemostare ikely obe viewedas mostpersuasive y othergroupmembers nd that t is thequantity f remarks, ottheirquality,hatseems odrive heseperceptions(Marsden 987). nprinciple,ach uror's erspectivehouldbegivenequalweight n groupdeliberations,utsimply ncreasinghevolumeof one'scommentaryeems oincrease hechances hatone'sopinionswillprevail.Studiesof the behavior f interracialroups n American lassroomssupporthegeneralindinghat mergesrom tudies fjuries,hatmembersof the dominant roup n societyalso tend to dominate n small groupsworking nacommon roblem.Dominances shownnthesestudiesnottobe attributableo anygreaterkill on thepartof thedominantroup.Oneearly tudy ound hatwhen nterracialroupswork ogethern acollectivetask,White tudents remoreactiveand nfluential.



21/31


Katz, Benjaminand Goldstonfoundthatblackcollege studentsdisplayedmarked ocialinhibitionandsubordinationowhitepartnersn acooperativeproblem-solving ituation,even when subjectswere matchedon intelligenceandmade to display equal abilityatthe task ... Whites initiatedmoreinteractionhanblacks;both blacksand whitestalkedmore to whites dtanto blacks.(Cohen 1982, 210-1).

Importantly,hese studies controlledfor factors such as age, height, socio-economic status, and attitudes toward school. Even when students werematchedon these demographic actors as well as on abilityat the problem-solving task pursuedby the group, high-statusmembers were routinelytreatedas if their contributiono the groupproblemwerebetter.They spokemore during groupdiscussions,andthey were given moreopportunities omake suggestions; npostmeetingquestionnaires, roupmembersperceivedthe high-statusparticipants s havingbetter deas andas havingdone moreto guide the group.These resultshold whether the racialcomparisonsarebetweenAnglo and Mexican Americanstudents,blackandwhite students,Native Americans and whites, or Israelisor EuropeanandMiddle-Easternbackground tudents Cohen 1982).If dominance n groupdiscussions is not attributableo the superior killsatreasoning,argument,or deliberationof thedominantgroup,thenit is notlikely thatdistributing he skills for deliberationmorewidely will solve theproblemsof unequalparticipationor influence. Instead, improvingdemo-cratic discussion seems to requireinterventions n the structureof groupdeliberations.

Jury studies provide fodder not only for democraticworriesaboutthecourse of groupdeliberations n the United States but also for suggestionsabouthow discussionsmightbe structuredo makeproblemsof dominanceandhierarchyess pressing.Forinstance, t appears hatsomestyles of groupdiscussionare morelikely to elicit the views of all groupmembers hanareothers. Social psychologists distinguish between "evidence-driven"and"verdict-driven" eliberation tyles injuries.Verdict-drivenuriesdecide totakea vote earlyon to see whereeveryonestands.Theytend to arriveattheirfinaldeterminationselativelyquickly,with the verdictalmostalwaysreflect-ing thepositionof themajoritynthe initialvote. By contrast, uriesengaginginevidence-drivendeliberationsendtodiscuss themeritsof certainperspec-tives on the evidence withouttakingan initialvote or otherwiseassociatingcertain urorswith certainperspectives.Whenjury deliberationsarefocused moreon eliciting a rangeof viewsinsteadof on the commonproblemof arrivingat a verdict, hey appearikelytoprovokebothamoreconsideratediscussionandonethat eavesjurorsmoresatisfied with their participation: urors on evidence-driven uries reportthinking they have done a good job more frequently than do jurors on



22/31


verdict-drivenuries Hans ndVidmar986;Brown1986).Further,fajurydecides odefervotinguntildiscussingheevidence,t canapparentlyoldoff the mechanismshatallowsome ndividualsodominate iscussions:

Inan deallyairand ationaleliberationrocess, lltheargumentsfboth actionswillbe weighedbeforecoming o a decision,whichmaybe requiredo be explicitlyunanimous. hemajority, eknow,hassomepoweroinfluenceheperceptualudg-mentsof theminority ytheforceofconformity,hichhasnothingo do withrationalargument,nd t is alsoknown hat mallminoritiesnjuries ometimesgree o "goalong"witha unanimouserdict lthoughheyhavenotbeenpersuadedhattiscorrect.(Brown 986,286)Verdict-driveneliberationseduce he chances f abroad onsiderationof all views on theevidence, educe helikelihood f arational iscussion,and ncreasehepressuresoconformity.utverdict-driveneliberationsremore nkeepingwithamalestyleofdiscoursendaremore ikely ooccurwhenmenheaduries.Some ocial-scientifictudiesuggesthatwomen remore ikely hanmen oencouragenevidence-driventyleofdeliberation.Women ppearoaccommodateifferentointsof viewbetter hanmendo.Instudies f all-femaleroups,hemore ctive peakersried o draw ut hemore ilentmembers, hichs akeycharacteristicfevidence-drivenuries. ncontrast,nall-malegroups,hemoreactivemembersventuallygnoredhe essactivemembers, hich sa keycharacteristicf verdict-drivenuries.Themendisplayedompetitivenessithothermen,whereashe womenexpressedooperation ith otherwomen. nmixedgroups, owever,hewomen onsistentlyecamemore ilent. fwomen re ncouragedtospeakmore ndmenareremindedo listenmore,womenmaybe able obringo urydeliberationsheir endencyo engagenevidence-driveniscussion.Marsden987,603-4; ee alsoKanter979)

If partof whatdeliberation eans s bringingmoreparticipantsndmoreperspectivesntocommon iscussions nd oensurehatdifferentiewsareconsiderederiously,t is notlikelyto be increasedustbydistributingheskillsfor deliberation orewidely.Thats, ensuring articipationndelib-eration, ndguaranteeing discussionhatcallson allperspectives,s notjusta matter f teaching veryoneo argue.Tomeettheconcern f equalparticipation,emocrats houldexplicitlyattend o issues of groupdy-namicsand ry odevelopwaystoundercuthedominancef higher-statusindividuals.Democraticeliberationmightalsobe endorsed s a surer ourse handecisionmakingby anelitegroupo a fairorjust decisionaboutssuesofcommon nterest. nthiscaseagain,however, tudiesof juriessuggest hatwhoparticipates ost n commondeliberationsassomebearing n what



23/31

368 POLITICALHEORYJune 1997

theoutcome f thosediscussionswillbe,andonwhetherhosedecisionswillbe viewedasfairor ustbyallmembers f thecommunity.Somestudiesofjurieshaveexaminedhequestion f whetherhe ury scompetento arrive t a fairorjustverdict.Competencyn manyof thesestudieshasbeenassessed yexamininghecorrespondenceetween erdictsrenderedyjudgesascomparedojuries.Since,as ageneralmatter,udgesandjuriestendoverwhelminglyo arriveat the sameverdicts,by thisstandard,urydeliberationsookfairor right n termsof theiroutcome,despitetheapparentlyroublingdynamicsof deliberationsHansandVidmar1986;Hastie,Penrod,andPennington1983).Other urystudies,however,suggestthat thedynamicsof deliberation-who dominates,whose perspective is suppressed-might be quite conse-quentialfor the fairness orjustice of the outcomeof deliberations.PhoebeEllsworthand her colleagues found, in studies of "death-qualified"uries(juriescomposedof individualswillingto imposethe deathpenalty ncapitalcrimes),thatthesejuriesaremorelikely to convict thanother uries:theyarebiased against the defendant (Cowan, Thompson, and Ellsworth 1984;Fitzgeraldand Ellsworth1984).Ajurycomposedof death-qualifiedurors salso unrepresentativef thebroaderpopulation. t is morelikely to be madeup of White men who are Christians,Republicans,and wealthy,and lesslikely to be composed of women, Blacks, poor people, Democrats,Jews,atheists, ragnostics.A suppositionwe mightdraw,puttingtogetherthe findings aboutdeath-qualified uriesandwhatwe knowabout hedynamicsof deliberation, s that,to theextent hathigher-statusndividualsominateurydiscussions,uries

mayveer toward onvicting efendants.urthervidence n thisdirectionhasemergedrom tudies f theresponsesfjurors otestimony yexpertson domesticviolence,n trialsof womenwho haveclaimed o havekilledtheirbatterersn self-defense.ReginaSchuller ound hatmale urorswere"moreikely ofavorguiltyverdicts nd o offerunfavorablenterpretationsof thedefendant'stateof mindandof herability o leave thesituationnwhichshefoundherself' VidmarndSchuller 989,154).Attitudesboutcrimeandaboutwhodeservesobeconvicted renotrandomlyistributedacross hepopulationfjurors.nstead,onviction-pronenessppearsobeconcentratedn individuals hopossesscharacteristicsimilar o the char-acteristics f those whotendto dominate iscussions.Thedominance fhigher-statusndividualsndiscussionsmayshiftnotonly thestylebuttheoutcome f thesediscussions.Themost mportantemocraticope ordeliberations thatdeliberation,in juriesor elsewhere, nhances itizenship y inspiring utonomy nd asenseofcommunity;n otherwords,tproducesonditions fmutualespect.



24/31


Yetagain, ocialhierarchiesndpatternsfoppressionmayhamperhisgoal,afflictingdeliberationufficiently o thatparticipationnstillsa sense ofalienationatherhan itherautonomyrcommunity.Firsthandccountsby AfricanAmericanurors n the trial of RobertChamberswho,before he uryhadreached finalverdict, leaded uiltytofirst-degree anslaughternthedeath f DawnLevin) einforceheviewthat urorswho areprivilegedn termsof race,economicbackground,rgender end to haveperspectivesuitedifferent romthose who arenot,belyingheexpectationhatdeliberationight nspire, rhelprecall,a senseof community.hedistance etweenurors' erspectivesmaybesufficientso that essprivilegedurorseel that heir iewsarediscounted, possibilityclearlynot nkeepingwith hepromotionf a senseof autonomy.RobertNickeywasservingon ajuryfor thethird ime nthe Chamberstrial.He testified n the 1988publichearingsof the New YorkJudicialCommission n Minoritieso his beliefthathis views weresystematicallyunheeded y White urors.Nickeyreported sking he otherurorsf theywouldhaveanydifficulty onvictingChambersf murderwith ntent f hewereBlack,andhavinghisinquirymetwithsilence.He alsoexpressed isdisillusionment ith the legal system:"Ialways elt and was taught hatjusticewasblind orace, olor,orcreed.But hatsnotso here nNew York"(as quotedn Davis1989, 1569).Indeed,hereactionso theverdictntheSimiValley rialof thepoliceofficers ccused f beatingRodneyKing,andto the criminalrialof 0. J.Simpson,evealaprofoundistrust f the ideathatAmericansmight esolve heirdisagreementsyresortingo a commonground.

Becausedominanceppearsobe a function f status nd heattributionsof superiorityhataccompanyt,distributingkillsandresourcesordelib-eration s unlikely o ensuremoreegalitariannddemocratic iscussions.Perhapsmoreobviously, eithers urginghediscovery f acommon oicelikely o addressheproblemsf inequalityngroupdeliberations.hegoalof democratic iscussion houldnotbeteaching veryoneodeliberate, uttrying o figureout a wayto makesurethateveryoneparticipatesnd iseffectively epresentednd aken eriouslyndiscussions.

AN ALTERNATIVEODELIBERATION?I should aythat amnotentirely gainst eliberation.utI amagainstit fornow:Ithinktisprematures astandardorAmericanemocrats, hoareconfronted ithmore mmediateroblems. ndI think hestandardas



25/31


perniciousonsequences,o the extent hat t is distractingrommorebasicproblemsf inclusion ndmutualecognition,nd otheextent hatt favorsa formof expression nddiscourse hatmakes t likelythat he talkof anidentifiablendprivilegedector ftheAmericanublicwilldominateublicdialogue.Modemdemocrats'dentificationf deliberation ith thepursuitof acommonvoice stealsattention rom the egalitarianoncern o enhanceeffectiveparticipation.lthoughmodemdemocraticheorists lsowant ohonorthe concern o bringtheperspectives f thedisenfranchisedntopublicdiscussions,heirappealo deliberationndercutshisconcern.Theinvitationo deliberateasstringsattached.Deliberations a requestor acertainkindof talk:rational, ontained,ndorientedo a sharedproblem.Whereantidemocratsaveused hestandardsf expertise,moderation,ndcommunal rientations a wayto excludeaverage itizens rompoliticaldecision-making,odern emocratseem oadopthese tandardssguidesfor whatdemocraticolitics houldbe like.Andtheexclusionaryonnota-tionsof thesestandardsersist.Arguinghatdemocraticiscussion houldberational,moderate,ndnotselfish mplicitly xcludespublic alk hat s impassioned,xtreme, nd heproductfparticularnterests. his sonesetofindictmentsf thedemocraticappealo deliberation.heevidence rom ocialscientific tudiesof delib-erationnjuriesandclassroomsuggestsa furtherriticism.Themodelofdeliberationimplydoes not takesufficient ccount f thewaysthatstatusandhierarchyhapepatterns f talkingandlistening o ensurethatallperspectivesreconsidered,hatparticipationn apublicdiscussionnstillsa sense of autonomy,nd that hepursuit f a commonnterestdoes notcoincidewith hepromotionf theviewsof thedominant.An alternativeo deliberations a model ordemocratic oliticshas tobegin by trying o rule out theproblemshatthecritique f deliberationreveals.That s, thealternativehould voidstated r implicit equirementsthat alkbe onlyrational ndmoderate, rthat he only perspectives orthattendingo areperspectiveshat lluminate hat s common.Instead f focusing o exclusively ndeliberation, merican emocratscouldcullanalternative odel rom heirpolitical istory. he deaofgivingtestimony,f tellingone'sparticulartory o a broaderroup, as mportantprecedentsnAmericanolitics, articularlynAfricanAmerican olitics ndchurchesSmithernan 977).Suggestingestimony s a potentially etterstandard or democratic iscussions handeliberation oes not rule out



26/31


deliberation,ustassuggesting eliberationoesnotruleout estimony. othmayhavesomeplace n a broad emocraticrocess.But hecurrenttateofAmerican olitics s sufficientlyxclusive, ufficientlyfflicted y patternsof dominance,o thatevenhandedroupdeliberationsreunlikely.Publicdiscussionsnthe UnitedStates eem ikelytoreplicatehehierarchieshatare dentifiablendomains hataren't xplicitlypolitical.Forexample,hequalityof life in the UnitedStates s vastlydifferentor BlackAmericansthan orWhites,whetherhesedifferencesremeasurednterms f income,employment,ealth, reducationNational esearch ouncil1989).But heepistemologicalroblems perhapsvenmoredaunting:WhitesandBlackssee differentworlds.There re ewpolicyorpoliticalssueson whichWhitesandBlacksarewillingto expressevenremotely imilarviews to surveyinterviewers:nvirtuallyllmatters fAmericanublic pinion,BlacksandWhitesare dividedby a wide(andof coursestatisticallyignificant) ulf(Kinder ndSanders 992).Evidence bout acialandgender ifferencesnjurydeliberations, hile not definitiveby itself, supportshe sketchofAmericanocietyas a societycharacterizedy importantivisionsbetweengroupswhethermeasurednterms fpower, tatus, uality flife,orpoliticalviews.Ifweallowthat omeAmericansremorealienatedhanothers, hatsomearerelatively isenfranchised,hen hemodelof democraticoliticssubscribedo by democraticheoristshould ryto remedy, otreinforce,theseproblems.Testimonymightbe a model hatallowsfor theexpression f differentperspectivesatherhan eekingwhat's ommon.Thecontrast etweenhepursuit fcommonality,nd hesimpler im oinclude ndrepresentfullerrangeof critical oices, s at thecoreof thedifferenceetweendeliberationand estimony. orexample,whereCohenandRogers omplain f the lackof a "common oice" 1983, 17)bell hooksarticulatesheneed orcriticalvoices:

Yearning s the word thatbest describes a commonpsychological statesharedby manyof us, cuttingacrossboundariesof race, class, gender,andsexualpractice.Specifically,in relation o thepost-modernist econstruction f "master" arratives,he yearning hatwells in the heartsand minds of thosewhomsuchnarratives avesilenced is thelongingfor criticalvoice.... [Rapmusic] beganas a form of "testimony" or theunderclass. thasenabledunderclassblackyouthto developa criticalvoice, as a groupof youngblackmen toldme,a "commoniteracy."Rapprojectsa criticalvoice, explaining,demanding,urging.(hooks 1990, 27)



27/31


What s fundamentalboutgiving estimonys tellingone'sownstory,notseeking ommunalialogue.Although ooksreferso thedevelopmentf a"commoniteracy,"hisvoice s commono agrouphat s usually xcludedfromthe discourseof the dominant, nd the voice that contributeso a"commoniteracy"s posedbyhooks noppositiono,andas a criticism f,this dominant iscourse.There'sno assumptionn testimony f findingacommonaim,noexpectationf a discussion rientedo theresolution f acommunity roblem. estimonys alsoradically galitarian:hestandardorwhether viewis worthy fpublicattentions simply hat veryonehouldhave a voice,a chance o tell herstory.Whatmight ecommendestimonyrightnowto democratsstheneed obringmoreperspectivesntodemocraticdiscussionsnd ofigureoutawaynotto closeoff theviewsofanybecausetheyaredifferent, ot common.Unlikedeliberation,he standard f testi-monydoes notexcludepositions f theyare voiced in an immoderateremotionallyadenway.Testimonyncourageshedemocraticonsiderationof theworthinessf perspectivesotobviously ooted n commongroundandnotnecessarilyoiced n acalmly ational ay. notherwords,estimonycouldopen hepossibilityfreasonable,ollective onsiderationfnovel, fdisquieting, erspectives.Testimonyassomethingf aprecursorn the houghtfJohnStuartMill,a writermoreregularlyonstruedsaproponentf democraticeliberation.Thenineteenthentury ritishociety hatMilltriedo reformnhiswritingwas,likecontemporarymericanociety,afflicted ydivisionsandexclu-sions. WhenMill spokeabout hebenefitsof including disenfranchisedgroup,women, n publicdiscussions, e spokeabout heprimary im ofhearing n excludedperspective,otdiscovenrngcommonvoice.In7heSubjection f Women,Millwrote hatnothingdefinitive anbe knownofwomen,since"women hemselveshavegivenbut ittletestimony." heyhadnot beenallowed o "tellanythingo thegeneralpublic" Mill 1975,454, 456).NothinghatMillsaid n 1869,orthatbellhooks ays oday, uggestshatall thatdemocraticolitics hould verbe about s citizens elling heirownstories,n theirownways,toeachother.ButbothMill andhooksattendoimmediate ndpressing roblemsf exclusion nddifferencen a waythatcontemporaryheorists void.When heperspectivesf some citizensaresystematically uppressedn public discourse, hen democratic oliticsshould aim simplyand firstto ensure he expression f these excludedperspectives.nstead f aiming or a commondiscussion, emocratsmight



28/31


adopta more undamentaloal: o trytoensure hat hosewhoareusuallyleft out of publicdiscussionsearn o speakwhetherheirperspectives recommonornot,and hosewhousuallydominateearn o hear heperspec-tives of others.

NOTES1. Thefirstdraft f "Against eliberation"aspresentedttheMidwest olitical cienceAssociationAnnualMeetingn April1991.SincethenI havepresentedt formallyo othergroups, iscussedtwithmany,many eople, ndhave,upon equest,istributedt n oneversionoranotherostillothers.Thiswidecirculationasproducednnumerablealuable ommentsandreactions,nd oomuch oodadvice oincorporateere.While ew of these eaders illbeable o locateheremyresponsesotheir pecific uggestions,stillwant oacknowledgehem,alongwithotherswhodidnotread heessaybutrespondedomyrequestsoradviceabout t.Forthishelp,I amgratefuloElizabeth nderson, obertCalvert,MichaelDawson,PhoebeEllsworth,onElster,DonHerzog, tephenHolmes, imJohnson,ackKnight, ernardManin,MichaelNeblo,RickPildes,StevePincus,Frank posito, ackieStevens,Laura toker,Cass

Sunstein,oanTronto,ndmany thers 'veneglectedn this ist.2.This snot odisregardttempts,uchas thosemade yRawls1993)andLarmore1996)toarticulateheconditionshat easonableitizensmight greeuponnorderodevelopmorallyjustifiable olutions o theirdisagreements.nstead,my generalizationefers o thedearth fattemptsoconsider hetherrdinaryitizens reikelyoactreasonably,sreasonsconsideredbycontemporaryorl philosophersnddemocraticheorists.3. Though nsome ormsof pluralism,ationalecisionmakingsn'twhat hespecialistsdo,it is cutting eals nstead.nthemostclassic tatement, entleydiscusses luralisms aclashof interestshats reconcilediaskills arremovedrom eason-giving1908); orarecentvariant,ee Becker 1983).Sunstein1988)castsdeliberationin part)as theantithesis finterest-groupluralism.ee alsoMansbridge1992).4. InFrederickouglass's852Fourth fJulyOration,eobjectedothe dea hathewouldbeexpectedoargue gainstlavery Foner 950).

REFERENCESAckerman, ruce.1980.Socialjustice in the liberal state. NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Almond,Gabriel,ndSidneyVerba.963.Thecivic culture:Politicalattitudesanddemocracyinfive nations.Princeton,J:Princetonniversityress.Barber,Benjamin.984.Strongdemocracy:Participatorypoliticsfor a new age. Berkeley:Universityf Californiaress.



29/31


Becker,Gary.1983.A theoryof competitionmongpressure roupsorpoliticalnfluence.Quarterlyournal fEconomics8(3):371-400.Bellah,Robert,RichardMadsen,WiliamM.Sullivan,AnnSwindler,ndStevenM. lipton.1985.Habitsof the heart:Individualismnd commitmentn Americanife. Berkeley:Universityf Californiaress.Bendey,ArtiurF. 1908.Theprocessof government.hicago: niversityfChicago ress.Berelson, .,P.Lazarfeld,ndW.McPhee. 954.Voting. hicago: niversityfChicago ress.Brown,Roger. 986.Socialpsychology: he econd dition.NewYork: reePress.Burke, dmund.17901 987.ReflectionsntheRevolutionnFrance.Edited yJ.G.A.Pocock.Reprint,ndianapolis:ackett.Calhoun, raig, d. 1992.Habermasnd hepublic phere.Cambridge, A:MITPress.Cohen,E. G. 1982.Expectationtatesand nterracialnteractionn schoolsettings.AnnualReview f Sociology :209-35.Cohen, oshua,ndJoelRogers. 983.Ondemocracy.ewYork: enguin ooks.Collins,PatriciaHill.1990.BlackFeminist hought.oston:UnwinHyman.Converse, hilip. 1963]1969.Attitudesndnon-attitudes:ontinuationf adialogue.nThequantitativenalysis fsocialproblems,dited yEdward . Tufte.Reprint, eading,MA:Addison-Wesley.Cowan,C.L.,W.C.Thompson,ndP.C. Ellsworth.984.Theeffectsof death ualificationnjuror's redispositiono convict ndonthequalityfdeliberation.awandHuman ehavior8:53-79.Dahl,Robert. 956.Aprefaceodemocraticheory.Chicago: niversityfChicago ress.Davis,PeggyC. 1989.Lawasmicroaggression.aleLawJournal 8:1559-77.Dill,BonnieThornton.983.Race, lass,andgender: rospectsoranall-inclusiveisterhood.Feminist tudies :131-50.Downs,Donald. 989.Thenewpolitics fpornography.hicago: niversityfChicago ress.Ellsworth,hoebe. 989.Are welveheadsbetterhan ne?LawandContemporaryroblems52(4):205-24.Fsshkin,amesS. 1991.DemocracyndDeliberation. ewHaven:YaleUniversity ress.Fitzgerald, .,andP.C. Ellsworth.984.Dueprocess s. crime ontrol: eath ualificationndjuryattitudes.awandHuman ehavior:31-51.Foner,PhilipS. 1950.The ife andwritingsfFrederick. Douglass.NewYork: nternationalPublishers.Gutmann, my,andDennisThompson.996.Democracynddisagreement.ambridge, A:Harvard, elknap ress.Habermas,urgen.1962]1992.Thestructuralransfonrationf thepublic phere.Reprint,Cambridge, A:MITPress.Hans,Valerie .,andNeilJ.Vidmar. 986.Judginghe ury.NewYork: lenum.Hastie,Reid,S. Penrod, ndN. Pennington.983. nside he ury.Cambridge, A:HarvardUniversityress.Held,David.1987.Models f democracy.tanford, A:Stanford niversity ress.Herzog,Don. 1989.Happylaves.Chicago: niversityf Chicago ress.hooks,bell.1981.Ain't a woman: lackwomen ndfeminism.oston: outhEndPress.. 1990.Yearning:ace,gender ndculturalolitics.Boston: outhEndPress.Johnson, ames,andJackKnight.1996. Whatsort of political qualitydoes democraticdeliberationequire? npublished anuscript.



30/31


Joseph,Gloria,and JillLewis. 1981. Commondifferences:Conflicts n Blackand Whitefeministperspectives.oston: outhEndPress.KalvenH.,andH. Zeisel.1966.TheAmericanury.Boston:Littde,rown.Kanter, osabethMoss.1979.Menandwomen fthecorporation.ewYork: asicBooks.Kinder,DonaldR., andLynnM. Sanders.1996. Dividedbycolor:Racialpolitics and Americandemocracy. hicago: niversityfChicago ress.Klatch,Rebecca. 987.Womenfthenewright.Philadelphia:empleUniversityress.Knight, ack,andJamesJohnson. 994.Aggregationnddeliberation: n thepossibility fdemocraticegitimacy.oliticalTheory2:277-96.Larmore, harles. 996.Themorals f modernity.ewYork:Cambridge niversityress.Lindblom, harles. 980.Thepolicymaking rocess,2ded.Englewood liffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.MacPherson,.B. 1965.Therealworld f democracy.ewYork:OxfordUniversityress.Manin, ernard.987.On egitimacyndpoliticaleliberation.oliticalTheory 5(3): 38-368.Mansbridge,ane. 1992.A deliberativeheoryof interest epresentation.n Thepoliticsof

interests:Interestgroupstransformed, ditedby MarkP.Petracca.Boulder,CO: WestviewPress.Marsden,Nancy.1987.Note: Genderdynamics ndjurydeliberations. aleLaw Journal96:593-612.Mill, John Stuart.1975. Threeessays: On liberty,representative overnment, hesubjectionofwomen.New York:OxfordUniversityress.National ResearchCouncil. 1989.A commondestiny:Blacks and Americansociety. EditedbyG.D.Jaynes ndR.M.Williams.Washington,C:National cademy ress.Phillips,Anne.1995.Thepoliticsofpresence.NewYork:OxfordUniversityress.Pitkin,Hanna. 967.Theconcept f representation.erkeley: niversityf Californiaress.

. 1981.Justice:Onrelating rivatendpublic. oliticalTheory (3):327-52.Pitkin,Hanna,ndSaraShumer. 982.Onparticipation.emocracy(4):43-54.Rawls, ohn.1971.Atheory fjustice.Cambridge, A:Belknap ressof Harvard niversity.. 1993.Politicaliberalism. ewYork:Columbia niversityress.Reich,Robert . 1988.Policymakingn ademocracy.n Thepowerof public deas,editedbyRobert . Reich.Cambridge, A:Ballinger.Schumpeter, oseph.[1942] 1976.Capitalism, ocialism anddemocracy.Reprint,London:AllenandUnwin.

Sidney, Sir Philip. 1984. The countess of Pembroke'sArcadia. Edited by Maurice Evans.Harmondsworth:enguin.Smith,Barbara.982.Racism ndwomen'studies.nBut omeofusarebrave, dited yGloriaT.Hull,Patricia ellScott,andBarbaramith.OldWestbury,Y:Feminist ress.Smitherman,Geneva. 1977. Talkin'and testifyin':The language of Black America. Detroit:Wayne tateUniversityress.Spelman, lizabeth .1988. nessentialWoman.oston:BeaconPress.Sunstein,Cass.1988.Beyondherepublicanevival.YaleLawJournal 7:1539-90.Thomas,Keith.1983.Manand henaturalworld.NewYork: antheon ooks.deTocqueville,lexis.1969.DemocracynAmerica. ranslatedy GeorgeLawerence,ditedbyJ. P.Mayer.NewYork:Anchor ooks.Vidmar, eil,andReginaSchuller. 989.Juries ndexpert vidence: ocial rameworkesti-

mony.Law and contemporary roblems 52(4):133-76.Wolin, heldon. 981.Thepeople'swobodies.democracy(1):9-24.



31/31

376 POLITICALTHEORY/ June 1997

LynnM. Sanders receivedher Ph.D inpolitical sciencefrom the UniversityofMichiganand herA.B. at MountHolyoke College.AssistantProfessor of Political Science at TheUniversityof Chicago,where she teaches and conductsresearch in the areas of U. S.politics, public opinion,race andgender

Sanders Against Deliberation

Documents

Transcript of Sanders Against Deliberation