Deliberative Democracy
Deliberative democracy is the focus of a multitude of recent literature. Scholar John Elster noted, “The idea of deliberative democracy, or decision making by discussion among free and equal citizens, is having a revival.”[1] Its roots are as deep as the roots of democracy itself. Pericles declared in fifth century B.C.E. that in Athens, discussion is “an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all.” [2] The concept was also revived in the early years of the United States’ existence. In the nineteenth-century John Stuart Mill envisioned a government by public discourse, noting that people were no longer barbarians: “Mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.”[3] Discussion can help the public substitute truth for error, or at the very least, leave a “clearer perception and livelier impression of truth.”[4]
More recently, researchers have attempted to define the process of deliberation more specifically. Susan Stokes’ definition has particular salience when it comes to the topic of media: Deliberation is “the endogenous change of preferences resulting from communication.”[5] Such deliberation occurs through the search for truth, a role that the news media is theoretically supposed to support.[6] However, this definition allows a wide range of communication to fit under deliberation umbrella; it is also the most applicable toward the study of satirical news and its ability to encourage public debate.
Professor Frank Michelman described the actions citizens take when engaging in deliberative democracy: “Participants direct their arguments toward arriving at a reasonable answer to some question of public ordering . . . .”[7] Objectivity need not be discoverable in such a democracy, instead the aim is toward “conciliation within reason” and not “dissolution of difference.” [8] Adam Przeworski illustrated the tendency for elite groups, such as politicians and the media, to impose beliefs in the guise of deliberation that benefit only themselves, not the general public.[9] True deliberative democracy, in summation, is viewed as an ideal form of democracy. It is a form that bridges the gaps between the elite and the common man by allowing the common man to question and discuss the beliefs being “imposed” from above. Media should serve the purpose of encouraging deliberative democracy.
James Fearon,[10] Joshua Cohen,[11] and James Johnson[12] all asserted that while improving the intellect of the participating citizen cannot be the reason for choosing the deliberative decision-making procedure, it might be a by-product. In terms of satirical news, the entertainment value may serve as a reason for choosing this format to learn about politics; through questioning and attacking elitist beliefs, the desirable by-product of watching such shows is to become more deliberative in decision-making.
Finally, if you'd like to learn more about deliberative democracy, check out these links:
• Deliberative Democracy on Wikipedia
• Center for Deliberative Democracy
• The Deliberative Democracy Consortium
_____________________________________________
[1] John Elster, introduction to Deliberative Democracy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1.
[2] Thucydides., The History of the Peloponnesian War: The Second Book, trans. Richard Crawley, 431 B.C.E., accessed February 14, 2010, http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/ pelopwar.2.second.html.
[3] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, (London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869) accessed February 10, 2010, www.bartleby.com/130/.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Susan Stokes, “Pathologies of Deliberation,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 123-139.
[6] Jack Fuller, News Values: Ideas for an Information Age, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). See chapter one, “The Truth of the News.”
[7] Frank Michelman, “Conception of Democracy in America Constitutional Argument: Voting Rights,” Florida Law Review 41 (1989): 447.
[8] Ibid., 448.
[9] Adam Przeworksi, “Deliberation and Ideological Domination,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 140-160.
[10] James Fearon, “Deliberation as Discussion,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 45.
[11] Joshua Cohen, “Democracy and Liberty,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 186.
[12] James Johnson, “Arguing for Deliberation: Some Skeptical Considerations,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 172.
More recently, researchers have attempted to define the process of deliberation more specifically. Susan Stokes’ definition has particular salience when it comes to the topic of media: Deliberation is “the endogenous change of preferences resulting from communication.”[5] Such deliberation occurs through the search for truth, a role that the news media is theoretically supposed to support.[6] However, this definition allows a wide range of communication to fit under deliberation umbrella; it is also the most applicable toward the study of satirical news and its ability to encourage public debate.
Professor Frank Michelman described the actions citizens take when engaging in deliberative democracy: “Participants direct their arguments toward arriving at a reasonable answer to some question of public ordering . . . .”[7] Objectivity need not be discoverable in such a democracy, instead the aim is toward “conciliation within reason” and not “dissolution of difference.” [8] Adam Przeworski illustrated the tendency for elite groups, such as politicians and the media, to impose beliefs in the guise of deliberation that benefit only themselves, not the general public.[9] True deliberative democracy, in summation, is viewed as an ideal form of democracy. It is a form that bridges the gaps between the elite and the common man by allowing the common man to question and discuss the beliefs being “imposed” from above. Media should serve the purpose of encouraging deliberative democracy.
James Fearon,[10] Joshua Cohen,[11] and James Johnson[12] all asserted that while improving the intellect of the participating citizen cannot be the reason for choosing the deliberative decision-making procedure, it might be a by-product. In terms of satirical news, the entertainment value may serve as a reason for choosing this format to learn about politics; through questioning and attacking elitist beliefs, the desirable by-product of watching such shows is to become more deliberative in decision-making.
Finally, if you'd like to learn more about deliberative democracy, check out these links:
• Deliberative Democracy on Wikipedia
• Center for Deliberative Democracy
• The Deliberative Democracy Consortium
_____________________________________________
[1] John Elster, introduction to Deliberative Democracy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1.
[2] Thucydides., The History of the Peloponnesian War: The Second Book, trans. Richard Crawley, 431 B.C.E., accessed February 14, 2010, http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/ pelopwar.2.second.html.
[3] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, (London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869) accessed February 10, 2010, www.bartleby.com/130/.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Susan Stokes, “Pathologies of Deliberation,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 123-139.
[6] Jack Fuller, News Values: Ideas for an Information Age, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). See chapter one, “The Truth of the News.”
[7] Frank Michelman, “Conception of Democracy in America Constitutional Argument: Voting Rights,” Florida Law Review 41 (1989): 447.
[8] Ibid., 448.
[9] Adam Przeworksi, “Deliberation and Ideological Domination,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 140-160.
[10] James Fearon, “Deliberation as Discussion,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 45.
[11] Joshua Cohen, “Democracy and Liberty,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 186.
[12] James Johnson, “Arguing for Deliberation: Some Skeptical Considerations,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. John Elster, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 172.