scholarly journals Deliberative System on Ambush Marketing

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-63
Author(s):  
최은희
Keyword(s):  
Ambush Marketing ◽  
Deliberative System

Democratic education in the fourth generation of deliberative democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 147787852110171
Author(s):  
Kei Nishiyama
Keyword(s):  
System Theory ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Democratic Education ◽  
Fourth Generation ◽  
Deliberative System

While the discussion on education for deliberative democracy is increasingly gaining prominence, there is a deep gap between the theories of deliberative democracy and democratic education with respect to what deliberative democracy is and ought to be. As a result, theories and practices of democratic education tend to be grounded in a narrow understanding of the meaning of deliberative competencies, students’ deliberative agency, and the role of schools in deliberative democracy. Drawing on the latest theorization of deliberative democracy – deliberative system theory – this article aims to question and revise these assumptions. The article suggests that meta-deliberation is a key practice that can reconcile the gap between the two theories.

Intra-party Deliberation and Reflexive Control within a Deliberative System

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Biale ◽  
Valeria Ottonelli
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Critical Reflection ◽  
Systemic Approach ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Central Tenet ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Special Responsibility

From within a “systemic approach” to deliberative democracy, political parties can be seen as crucial actors in facilitating deliberation, by playing epistemic, motivational, and justificatory functions that are central to the deliberative ideal. However, we point out that if we assume a purely outcome-oriented conception of the role of parties within a deliberative system, we risk losing sight of a central tenet of deliberative democracy and of its distinctive principle of legitimacy, namely, that citizens must be able to exercise critical reflection on the grounds of democratic decisions. We argue that parties have a special responsibility in making a deliberative system meet this requirement, and that such special role can be fulfilled only if parties’ programs, values, and strategies are shaped through intra-party deliberation. On the grounds of this discussion, we define a model of intra-party deliberation that is based on the principles of mutual acceptability, pluralism, and publicity.

scholarly journals 'Ambush marketing': ¿anuncios parasitarios o emboscadas publicitarias?

COMeIN ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Sivera
Keyword(s):  
Ambush Marketing

Entre las prácticas de publicidad alternativa, el controvertido marketing de emboscada (en inglés, ambush marketing) se ha asociado fundamentalmente a la intromisión de marcas en grandes acontecimientos deportivos o culturales, al margen de la oficialidad de patrocinios costosos. Sin embargo, también se empieza a vincular con acciones publicitarias entendidas como auténticos ataques por sorpresa.

Islands of Deliberative Capacity in an Ocean of Authoritarian Control? The Deliberative Potential of Self-Organised Teams in Firms

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Alexander Krüger
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Control Structures ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Depth Interviews

Business firms play an increasingly influential role in contemporary societies, which has led many scholars to return to the question of the democratisation of corporate governance. However, the possibility of democratic deliberation within firms has received only marginal attention in the current debate. This article fills this gap in the literature by making a normative case for democratic deliberation at the workplace and empirically assessing the deliberative capacity of self-organised teams within business firms. It is based on sixteen in-depth interviews in six German firms which practice various forms of self-organised teamwork. The article argues that self-organised teamwork can create a space for authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation by suspending authoritarian control structures within business firms. Finally, the article proposes the consideration of firms not only as necessary parts of a larger deliberative system but also as deliberative systems in themselves.

Do Not Ignore the Elephant... Exploring the Role of Intuition and Experience in Judicial Decision-Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Tvrdíková
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Experiential System ◽  
Analytical System

If we look at the literature about judicial decision-making and interpretation of law, we can find many texts which are dedicated to legal arguments, logic and legal reasoning – in those texts the rationality, analytical and logical thinking is glorified and an interpretation seems ‘just’ as a logical operation where judges subsume certain facts under general legal norm or norms, those norms are formulated linguistically, so it seems that the whole job of judges is to analyze texts. What we can see more rarely are discussions and texts exploring the role of intuitions, feelings and emotions and their role in judicial decision-making – at least in the Czech Republic. Those of our faculties are seen as the source of bias and distortion. Even if we look to the past, those themes are not so common among legal theorists and philosophers – especially in our tradition where we are still influenced by Hans Kelsen and František Weyr and their normative theory – but we can find exceptions and those are the American legal realists. In this paper, we will show that their observations and insights seem to be right. How can we know it? Because in last decades cognitive scientists have made big progress in the area of decision-making and it seems that we are not so rational as we thought us to be. They have explored that our thinking does not take place only through the deliberative system but, surprisingly, there is also another one system which influences our decisions. This system is automatic, fast, and intuitive – some call this system S1, Seymour Epstein an experiential system. This automatic system is more influential than our deliberative system because it is always heard – we can use Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of an elephant and a rider. S1, the intuitive, experiential system, is an elephant and S2, the deliberative, analytical system is the rider – in legal theory, we have talked about the rider a lot but we do not explore the elephant sufficiently. This paper will try to uncover the nature of the elephant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document