What do you think?
Rate this book
Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement
The banner of deliberative democracy is attracting increasing numbers of supporters, in both the world's older and newer democracies. This effort to renew democratic politics is widely seen as a reaction to the dominance of liberal constitutionalism. But many questions surround this new project. What does deliberative democracy stand for? What difference would deliberative practices make in the real world of political conflict and public policy design? What is the relationship between deliberative politics and liberal constitutional arrangements?
The 1996 publication of Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompsons Democracy and Disagreement was a signal contribution to the ongoing debate over the role of moral deliberation in democratic politics. In Deliberative Politics an all-star cast of political, legal, and moral commentators seek to criticize, extend, or provide alternatives to Gutmann and Thompson's hopeful model of democratic deliberation. The essays discuss the value and limits of moral deliberation in politics, and take up practical policy issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and health care reform. Among the impressive roster of contributors are Norman Daniels, Stanley Fish, William A. Galston, Jane Mansbridge, Cass R. Sunstein, Michael Walzer, and Iris Marion Young, and the editor of the volume, Stephen Macedo. The book concludes with a thoughtful response from Gutmann and Thompson to their esteemed critics.
This fine collection is essential reading for anyone who takes seriously the call for a more deliberative politics.
The 1996 publication of Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompsons Democracy and Disagreement was a signal contribution to the ongoing debate over the role of moral deliberation in democratic politics. In Deliberative Politics an all-star cast of political, legal, and moral commentators seek to criticize, extend, or provide alternatives to Gutmann and Thompson's hopeful model of democratic deliberation. The essays discuss the value and limits of moral deliberation in politics, and take up practical policy issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and health care reform. Among the impressive roster of contributors are Norman Daniels, Stanley Fish, William A. Galston, Jane Mansbridge, Cass R. Sunstein, Michael Walzer, and Iris Marion Young, and the editor of the volume, Stephen Macedo. The book concludes with a thoughtful response from Gutmann and Thompson to their esteemed critics.
This fine collection is essential reading for anyone who takes seriously the call for a more deliberative politics.
289 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 10, 2013
This is a book about a book. That book provides a theory about how to adjudicate between theories. Simple, eh?
Ok, snark aside, this is a series of essays dealing with - and mostly critiquing from a friendly perspective - Gutmann & Thompson's hugely important (in the subfield of democratic theory) Democracy and Disagreement. So the first question: do you need to have read D&D in order to understand the goings-on of this book? Not exactly, but it would be nice. Gutmann and Thompson's 2004 text, Why Deliberative Democracy? is much shorter than D&D, and updated to boot. You will however not have read the case studies that are explained in D&D and used as a basis of critique in this work. If you haven't read anything by Gutmann & Thompson, Stephen Macedo provides quite a good summary in the introduction of this text. So my assessment: you can read this book independently in a pinch, but I think you will get more out of the essays if you read D&D first. Besides, if you're the type of person that's going to read this book, you're probably the type that wants to / has to read D&D. It really is a classic, which means you can't avoid it forever.
Substantively, the essays are of a really high quality... no surprise here, given the contributors. Each piece was interesting in its own right, and I can't think of any that didn't make at least one original contribution to the literature. The possibly exception is the concluding essay, where Gutmann and Thompson respond to their critics, but that's not especially surprising - they're playing a largely defensive role there, so they don't have the luxury of writing a creative dissenting piece.
A bit of a slog to get through at times, but overall really original, useful (to the extent that a collection of essay about deliberative democracy can be useful), and thought-provoking material here
Ok, snark aside, this is a series of essays dealing with - and mostly critiquing from a friendly perspective - Gutmann & Thompson's hugely important (in the subfield of democratic theory) Democracy and Disagreement. So the first question: do you need to have read D&D in order to understand the goings-on of this book? Not exactly, but it would be nice. Gutmann and Thompson's 2004 text, Why Deliberative Democracy? is much shorter than D&D, and updated to boot. You will however not have read the case studies that are explained in D&D and used as a basis of critique in this work. If you haven't read anything by Gutmann & Thompson, Stephen Macedo provides quite a good summary in the introduction of this text. So my assessment: you can read this book independently in a pinch, but I think you will get more out of the essays if you read D&D first. Besides, if you're the type of person that's going to read this book, you're probably the type that wants to / has to read D&D. It really is a classic, which means you can't avoid it forever.
Substantively, the essays are of a really high quality... no surprise here, given the contributors. Each piece was interesting in its own right, and I can't think of any that didn't make at least one original contribution to the literature. The possibly exception is the concluding essay, where Gutmann and Thompson respond to their critics, but that's not especially surprising - they're playing a largely defensive role there, so they don't have the luxury of writing a creative dissenting piece.
A bit of a slog to get through at times, but overall really original, useful (to the extent that a collection of essay about deliberative democracy can be useful), and thought-provoking material here
Displaying 1 of 1 review