民主审议

James L. Wilson
{"title":"民主审议","authors":"James L. Wilson","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how the requirement of appropriate consideration regulates institutions and practices of political deliberation. These institutions and practices do not directly determine what the political community will do, as legislation does, but they shape the character of these decisions. Accordingly, they determine in significant part whether the regime is truly democratic. The chapter also critiques a family of views that claim fair deliberation requires equality of influence among citizens. The most basic problem with these views is their narrow conception of citizens' interests in fair deliberation. This narrowness leads the views to largely ignore a variety of affective, unconscious, arbitrary, and discriminatory ways in which citizens respond to efforts at influence. By contrast, the appropriate-consideration conception of political equality properly responds to the plurality of citizens' deliberative interests. The chapter then suggests what appropriate consideration requires of common deliberation, and how people should vary the scope and character of the consideration granted to different citizen judgments under different circumstances. These requirements attend both to individuals' claims for direct hearings for their views, and to broader concerns about a fair structure for synthesizing the various and conflicting judgments rendered by different citizens.","PeriodicalId":185107,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Equality","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Democratic Deliberation\",\"authors\":\"James L. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines how the requirement of appropriate consideration regulates institutions and practices of political deliberation. These institutions and practices do not directly determine what the political community will do, as legislation does, but they shape the character of these decisions. Accordingly, they determine in significant part whether the regime is truly democratic. The chapter also critiques a family of views that claim fair deliberation requires equality of influence among citizens. The most basic problem with these views is their narrow conception of citizens' interests in fair deliberation. This narrowness leads the views to largely ignore a variety of affective, unconscious, arbitrary, and discriminatory ways in which citizens respond to efforts at influence. By contrast, the appropriate-consideration conception of political equality properly responds to the plurality of citizens' deliberative interests. The chapter then suggests what appropriate consideration requires of common deliberation, and how people should vary the scope and character of the consideration granted to different citizen judgments under different circumstances. These requirements attend both to individuals' claims for direct hearings for their views, and to broader concerns about a fair structure for synthesizing the various and conflicting judgments rendered by different citizens.\",\"PeriodicalId\":185107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Equality\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Equality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Equality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本章考察适当考虑的要求如何规范政治协商的制度和实践。这些制度和做法不像立法那样直接决定政治团体将做什么,但它们塑造了这些决定的性质。因此,他们在很大程度上决定了这个政权是否真正民主。这一章还批评了一系列主张公平审议要求公民之间的影响力平等的观点。这些观点最基本的问题是对公平审议中公民利益的狭隘理解。这种狭隘导致这些观点在很大程度上忽视了公民对施加影响的努力作出反应的各种情感上的、无意识的、武断的和歧视性的方式。相比之下,政治平等的适当考虑观则恰当地回应了公民协商利益的多元性。然后,本章提出了共同审议的适当考虑条件,以及人们在不同情况下应如何改变给予不同公民判断的考虑的范围和性质。这些要求既涉及个人要求直接听取其意见的要求,也涉及更广泛的关切,即建立一个公平的结构,以综合不同公民提出的各种相互矛盾的判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Democratic Deliberation
This chapter examines how the requirement of appropriate consideration regulates institutions and practices of political deliberation. These institutions and practices do not directly determine what the political community will do, as legislation does, but they shape the character of these decisions. Accordingly, they determine in significant part whether the regime is truly democratic. The chapter also critiques a family of views that claim fair deliberation requires equality of influence among citizens. The most basic problem with these views is their narrow conception of citizens' interests in fair deliberation. This narrowness leads the views to largely ignore a variety of affective, unconscious, arbitrary, and discriminatory ways in which citizens respond to efforts at influence. By contrast, the appropriate-consideration conception of political equality properly responds to the plurality of citizens' deliberative interests. The chapter then suggests what appropriate consideration requires of common deliberation, and how people should vary the scope and character of the consideration granted to different citizen judgments under different circumstances. These requirements attend both to individuals' claims for direct hearings for their views, and to broader concerns about a fair structure for synthesizing the various and conflicting judgments rendered by different citizens.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信