Citation

Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Similar Titles



Abstract:

Building on prior thinking about political representation in democratic deliberation, we argue for four ideals of inclusion, each of which is most appropriate to a different situation. These principles of inclusion depend not only on the goals of a deliberation, but also on its level of empowerment in the political system, and its openness to all who want to participate. Some deliberations have holistic goals; they aim to make decisions for, or represent the collective opinion of, a people as a whole (demos). Such deliberations may be empowered to make decisions directly or serve an advisory role to other formal decision-making institutions.

Typically, these kinds of deliberations address public goods, the management of the commons, and reform of the democratic system itself. Other forums have relational goals to address matters between two social sectors, or between a sector and the people as a whole, or between peoples. These forums often tackle social problems, minority-majority relations, reconciliation between communities, and transnational issues. And some forums are open to accommodating all who want to participate, while others must offer restricted access to some sample of the public.

We argue that approaches to recruitment and inclusion can vary with the aims of the deliberative gathering. Holistic and open deliberations can most legitimately incorporate and decide for the people as a whole if they are open to all, simultaneously taking care to affirmatively recruit perspectives that would be under represented otherwise. Chicago Community Policing beat meetings offer an example. Holistic and restricted forums (such as the latter stages of some participatory budgeting processes) should recruit stratified random samples of the demos, but must also ensure that problems of tokenism are overcome by including a critical mass of the least powerful perspectives, so that their views can be aired and heard more fully and effectively. Forums that aim to improve relations between social sectors and peoples should provide open access for all who are affected by the issues (relational and open), if possible, or recruit a stratified random sample of all affected, when necessary (relational and restricted). In either case, proportional representation of the least advantaged perspectives is necessary. However, when deliberation focuses on relations between a disempowered group and the rest of society, or between unequal peoples, it is often most legitimate to over-sample the least powerful and even to create opportunities for the disempowered to deliberate among themselves so that their perspectives can be adequately represented in small and large group discussions. We illustrate this discussion with examples of atypical Deliberative Polls on Australia’s reconciliation with its indigenous community and the Roma ethnic minority in Europe.
Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: American Political Science Association Annual Meeting
URL:
http://www.apsanet.org


Citation:
URL: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1123680_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Karpowitz, Christopher. and Raphael, Chad. "Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, TBA, Philadelphia, PA, <Not Available>. 2017-11-28 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1123680_index.html>

APA Citation:

Karpowitz, C. F. and Raphael, C. "Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, TBA, Philadelphia, PA <Not Available>. 2017-11-28 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1123680_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Building on prior thinking about political representation in democratic deliberation, we argue for four ideals of inclusion, each of which is most appropriate to a different situation. These principles of inclusion depend not only on the goals of a deliberation, but also on its level of empowerment in the political system, and its openness to all who want to participate. Some deliberations have holistic goals; they aim to make decisions for, or represent the collective opinion of, a people as a whole (demos). Such deliberations may be empowered to make decisions directly or serve an advisory role to other formal decision-making institutions.

Typically, these kinds of deliberations address public goods, the management of the commons, and reform of the democratic system itself. Other forums have relational goals to address matters between two social sectors, or between a sector and the people as a whole, or between peoples. These forums often tackle social problems, minority-majority relations, reconciliation between communities, and transnational issues. And some forums are open to accommodating all who want to participate, while others must offer restricted access to some sample of the public.

We argue that approaches to recruitment and inclusion can vary with the aims of the deliberative gathering. Holistic and open deliberations can most legitimately incorporate and decide for the people as a whole if they are open to all, simultaneously taking care to affirmatively recruit perspectives that would be under represented otherwise. Chicago Community Policing beat meetings offer an example. Holistic and restricted forums (such as the latter stages of some participatory budgeting processes) should recruit stratified random samples of the demos, but must also ensure that problems of tokenism are overcome by including a critical mass of the least powerful perspectives, so that their views can be aired and heard more fully and effectively. Forums that aim to improve relations between social sectors and peoples should provide open access for all who are affected by the issues (relational and open), if possible, or recruit a stratified random sample of all affected, when necessary (relational and restricted). In either case, proportional representation of the least advantaged perspectives is necessary. However, when deliberation focuses on relations between a disempowered group and the rest of society, or between unequal peoples, it is often most legitimate to over-sample the least powerful and even to create opportunities for the disempowered to deliberate among themselves so that their perspectives can be adequately represented in small and large group discussions. We illustrate this discussion with examples of atypical Deliberative Polls on Australia’s reconciliation with its indigenous community and the Roma ethnic minority in Europe.


Similar Titles:
Expanding the Democratic Ideal: Inclusion and Deliberative Democracy

Institutions, Culture, and Deliberative Ideals: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry

Expanding the Democratic Ideal: Inclusion and Difference in Iris Marion Young’s Political Theory


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.