Televised Election Debates in a Deliberative System: The Role of Framing and Emotions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Turkenburg
Keyword(s):  
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.

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.

Non-deliberative politics in deliberative democracy: distinct approaches for different actors

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Felicetti
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Deliberative Politics ◽  
The One ◽  
Main Ideas ◽  
The Relationship

This article advances one of the most important debates in recent scholarship on democratic theory: the one on deliberative systems. In the wake of the systemic turn deliberative scholars agree that not all components of a deliberative system can or even need to be deliberative. However, there is little clarity about the role of non-deliberative politics in a system and to what extent these are justifiable while we seek a more deliberative society. In this paper I first illustrate the main ideas of the systemic turn, explore the distinction between ‘deliberative’ and ‘non-deliberative’ politics and investigate the main arguments justifying non-deliberative politics. Then, I build upon these arguments to shed new light on the relationship between deliberative and non-deliberative politics. I identify three distinctive actors in deliberative systems (political institutions, empowered agents, and public space actors). Finally, I argue that deliberative democrats should adopt three different approaches (intensive, moderate, and free) in order to assess whether the use of non-deliberative politics by each of these actors is legitimate.

scholarly journals Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Fromell ◽  
Daniele Nosenzo ◽  
Trudy Owens
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Dual System ◽  
Altruistic Behavior ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
Heterogeneous Effects ◽  
Null Result ◽  
Deliberative System

Abstract Can we use the lens of dual-system theories to explain altruistic behavior? In recent years this question has attracted the interest of both economists and psychologists. We contribute to this emerging literature by reporting the results of a meta-study of the literature and a new experiment. Our meta-study is based on 22 experimental studies conducted with more than 12,000 subjects. We show that the overall effect of manipulating cognitive resources to promote the “intuitive” system at the expense of the “deliberative” system is very close to zero. One reason for this null result could be that promoting intuition has heterogeneous effects on altruism across different subgroups of subjects or contexts. Another reason could be that there simply is no real effect and that previously reported single results are false positives. We explore the role of heterogeneity both by performing a mediator analysis of the meta-analytic effect and by conducting a new experiment designed to circumvent the issue of potential heterogeneity in the direction of the effect of promoting intuition. In both cases, we find little evidence that heterogeneity explains the absence of an overall effect of intuition on altruism. Taken together, our results offer little support for dual-system theories of altruistic behavior.

Interruptive protests in dysfunctional deliberative systems

Politics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026339572096029
Author(s):  
Nicole Curato
Keyword(s):  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Protest Movements ◽  
Deliberative System ◽  
Deliberative Politics ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Relationship

The field of deliberative democracy has long recognised the role of interruptive protests to make polities more sensitive to good reasons. But how exactly interruptive protests enhance deliberative systems remain an open question. ‘Non-deliberative acts may have deliberative consequences’ is a crucial line of argument in the deliberative systems literature, but the precise character of these consequences is yet to be spelled out. In this article, I describe three ways in which consequences of interruptive protests enhance the deliberative system. I argue that interruptive protests can redistribute (1) voice and visibility, (2) attention, and (3) deliberative agency which, in turn, can lay bare the weaknesses of a dysfunctional deliberative system. The arguments I put forward are based on interpretive case studies focusing on protest movements in the Philippines and Puerto Rico in the aftermath of record-breaking hurricanes. Overall, this paper seeks to clarify the relationship between deliberative politics and protest action, by identifying the distinctive contributions of interruptive protests in redistributing power in dysfunctional deliberative systems.

scholarly journals The Role of Experts across Two Different Arenas in a Deliberative System

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Rousiley C. M. Maia ◽  
Marcela D. Laranjeira ◽  
Pedro S. Mundim
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative System

Role of dactinomycin in the improved survival of children with Wilms' tumor

JAMA ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 195 (12) ◽  
pp. 1005-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Fernbach
Keyword(s):  
Wilms Tumor
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document