The is and the ought of democracy

IF 1.8 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
S. Coleman
{"title":"The is and the ought of democracy","authors":"S. Coleman","doi":"10.1177/02673231231163750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We academics tend to write about democracy in two quite different ways: empirically and normatively. Empirical accounts of existing democratic systems focus upon institutionalised arrangements, describing them in a ‘realist’ spirit and offering explanations for patterned and predictable events, trends and behaviour based upon what are conceived as being ‘value-free’ modes of investigation. Typically, empirical scholars of democracy pursue an instrumentally rationalist approach to political motivation and interaction. For them, democracy as a research object is not that different from the study of the planetary system by astronomers. They stick to what’s there – ‘the facts’ – beyond the bounds of which they leave matters to the theoretical conjectures of philosophers. Normative writings about democracy are prescriptive and evaluative. They highlight the values upon which democratic claims are made and justifications legitimised. They offer propositions about what democracies should be like. They do not eschew idealbased theory, arguing that it is only on the basis of normative qualities that empirical democracies can distinguish themselves from other political arrangements. In the political science literature – and especially that sub-field focused upon the study of political communication – empirical and normative accounts of democracy have not tended to sit together easily. Proponents of each complain about the limited vision of the other. Normative scholars of democracy sometimes wonder whether the relentless Review Essay","PeriodicalId":47765,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Communication","volume":"38 1","pages":"195 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231163750","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We academics tend to write about democracy in two quite different ways: empirically and normatively. Empirical accounts of existing democratic systems focus upon institutionalised arrangements, describing them in a ‘realist’ spirit and offering explanations for patterned and predictable events, trends and behaviour based upon what are conceived as being ‘value-free’ modes of investigation. Typically, empirical scholars of democracy pursue an instrumentally rationalist approach to political motivation and interaction. For them, democracy as a research object is not that different from the study of the planetary system by astronomers. They stick to what’s there – ‘the facts’ – beyond the bounds of which they leave matters to the theoretical conjectures of philosophers. Normative writings about democracy are prescriptive and evaluative. They highlight the values upon which democratic claims are made and justifications legitimised. They offer propositions about what democracies should be like. They do not eschew idealbased theory, arguing that it is only on the basis of normative qualities that empirical democracies can distinguish themselves from other political arrangements. In the political science literature – and especially that sub-field focused upon the study of political communication – empirical and normative accounts of democracy have not tended to sit together easily. Proponents of each complain about the limited vision of the other. Normative scholars of democracy sometimes wonder whether the relentless Review Essay
民主的现状和应该
我们学者倾向于用两种截然不同的方式来写民主:实证和规范。对现有民主制度的实证分析侧重于制度化安排,以“现实主义”精神对其进行描述,并根据被认为是“无价值”的调查模式,对模式化和可预测的事件、趋势和行为进行解释。通常,民主的实证学者对政治动机和互动采取工具理性主义的方法。对他们来说,民主作为一个研究对象与天文学家对行星系统的研究没有太大区别。他们坚持存在的东西——“事实”——超出了这个界限,他们把问题留给哲学家的理论推测。关于民主的规范性著作具有规范性和评价性。它们强调了民主主张和正当理由所依据的价值观。他们提出了民主应该是什么样子的主张。他们并不回避理想主义理论,认为只有在规范性的基础上,经验民主才能将自己与其他政治安排区分开来。在政治学文献中——尤其是专注于政治传播研究的子领域——对民主的实证和规范性描述往往不容易结合在一起。每一方的支持者都抱怨对方的视野有限。民主的规范学者有时会怀疑《评论随笔》是否无情
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Communication is interested in communication research and theory in all its diversity, and seeks to reflect and encourage the variety of intellectual traditions in the field and to promote dialogue between them. The Journal reflects the international character of communication scholarship and is addressed to a global scholarly community. Rigorously peer-reviewed, it publishes the best of research on communications and media, either by European scholars or of particular interest to them.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信