3
interests." Second, democratic discussions should meet the criterion of non-tyranny: that is,
they should not be coerced illegitimately or reflect the undue influence of powerful groups
(Bohman 1996). Instead, they should admit and examine different viewpoints, and be open to
contestation; thus open-mindedness is called for. Finally, democratic discussions should meet
a standard of political equality (Bohman 1996; Knight and Johnson 1997). Procedurally,
citizens should have equal access to deliberative arenas, and substantively they should have
equal opportunities to influence the deliberation.
Real political discussions fall short of these ideals: not enough citizens participate in
public discussions, and though such discussions are modestly contested, they are often
marred by political inequality (Conover et al. 2002). And unfortunately, identity politics
renders democratic discussion even more problematic. This can be seen by exploring how
both identities and emotions sometimes threaten democratic discussion.
EXPRESSIVE IDENTITIES AND CONSTITUTIVE PREFERENCES
Identity politics secures the dignity of individuals by ensuring that their social identities
are respected, and this requires respect for the ways of life—the preferences—associated with
those identities (Minow 1997). Identity politics rests on the assumption that our social
identities and our political interests are linked to one another in a mutually defining fashion.
Thus some of our preferences are “constitutive preferences” that help to define the meaning of
a particular social identity (Conover et al. 2002). And conversely, our identities are sometimes
“expressive identities” that not only shape our preferences, but also convey a message about
them (Hunter 2000). From this perspective, both our preferences and the identities associated
with them are dialogically shaped through social construction and regulated by social norms,
two deeply political processes (Benhabib 1999). Because our identities and basic preferences
can be mutually constitutive, when people discuss politics they are debating not just about
their preferences, but also about the identities linked to those preferences. So group
members must have a presence, voice, and authority in articulating their preferences on
issues that shape their identities, otherwise their interests will be misunderstood and their
identities rendered inauthentic (Phillips 1995; Williams, M. 1998; Young 1990, 2000).
But the fact that both preferences and identities are at issue in debates over
contentious topics complicates discussion, potentially undermining its democratic nature.
Specifically, identity politics makes it less likely that citizens will employ public reason in their
discussions. Political discourse on contentious issues often contains group cues (Conover
1988), which evoke group prototypes and stereotypes thereby making social identities salient
and promoting “identity talk”—discussion infused with particular group perspectives and “we-
they” language (Maurer, Park and Judd 1996). Even when an issue is not explicitly framed as
a group issue, public discourse can embody group cues (Conover 1988), and thus discussions
become “us-them” affairs, though ostensibly they are focused on abstract principles and
Convention