ABSTRACT
Deliberation has moved to the forefront in contemporary democratic theory. The main argument in the philosophical literature is that politics should not only be about power, reduced to counting votes or to bargaining among actors with fixed preferences. Rather, politics should be deliberative, infused with reason and arguments (Chambers 1996; Fishkin and Laslett 2002). Deliberative theorists view reflective and reasoned dialogue as a necessary means to arrive at legitimate decisions in modern pluralistic, fragmented and complex societies where a common religious view or a comprehensive moral outlook no longer exists and where the authority of tradition has greatly weakened (Benhabib 1996; Habermas 2005). The major claim of deliberative theorists is that deliberative pro cesses improve democratic practice and the quality of public policy, produce “better citizens” (Mansbridge 1999) and counteract the democratic deficits of representative democracy (Warren and Pearse 2008). In the last few years, deliberative democracy has developed rapidly from a “theoretical statement” into a “working theory” (Chambers 2003). Scholars and practitioners have launched numerous initiatives designed to put deliberative democracy into practice, ranging from deliberative polling to citizen summits (see Fung 2003; Melo and Baiocchi 2006; Parkinson 2006). At the same time, deliberation has made inroads in empirical (or positive) political science as well. A small but growing body of literature has tried to tackle this question of the connection between the normative standards of deliberation, how well they are met and the empirical consequences of meeting them. Empirical research has peered into a variety of real world settings, such as international negotiations (Risse 2000; Ulbert and Risse 2005; Panke 2006), national legislatures (Steiner et al. 2004; Mucciaroni and Quirk 2006), mediation processes (Holzinger 2001), ordinary citizens before elections and referenda (Kriesi 2005), social movements (Della Porta 2005), everyday talk (Searing et al. 2007) and formal settings such as deliberative opinion polls (Luskin et al. 2002). Efforts in this field have been accompanied by increasing methodological sophistication, not least involving several attempts to quantify the quality of deliberation (e.g., Holzinger 2001; Steenbergen et al. 2004). This chapter seeks to survey the territory of current deliberative theory, both from a normative and an empirical vantage point. On the one hand, there is increasing diversity in conceptualizing deliberation. The standard conception of
deliberation in the literature is rooted in the Habermasian logic of communicative action, focuses on rational argument, sincerity and deliberative intent, and involves a strong procedural component. The goal is to reach common understanding, or consensus. While many scholars (especially those outside the deliberative program) tend to understand deliberation in terms of rational discourse (or what we call type I deliberation), more recent conceptions of deliberative democracy can significantly depart from this deliberative program. These conceptions (which we label type II deliberation) involve a shift away from the idea of a purely rational discourse to a conception of deliberation that allows for alternative forms of communication (such as rhetorics or storytelling), relaxes – if not abandons – the sincerity criterion, and has a strong focus on outcomes which are normatively promising but realistically achievable. However, both types have non-trivial normative and empirical blind-spots which call for a complementary engagement between the two programs. On the other hand, even though the empirical deliberative train is rolling, much track work lies ahead. A major challenge consists in the fact that deliberative ideas are still not clearly defined as far as practical realization is concerned. This combines with sustained charges of utopianism (e.g., Hibbing and Theiss Morse 2002; Pincione and Teson 2006). As Page and Shapiro (1999: 111-112) have stated, “[w]e consider it to be very much an open question just how well deliberation works, by what mechanisms, under what circumstances.” However, recent research on deliberation has begun to take a detailed look at actor centered, psychological, institutional, cultural and issue factors that promote (or hinder) deliberative virtues. In the following, we first focus on the two types of deliberation, highlighting their defining characteristics and canvassing their blind spots. Second, we present a number of studies that take an informed look on how deliberation works in the real world and what outcomes it produces. Finally, we discuss a number of challenges that future research on deliberation confronts.
