“Deep Dialogue”—James Joyce's Contribution To American Constitutional Theory

Dialogue is the newest "buzz" word in progressive constitutional theory.' Progressive constitutional scholars increasingly rely on the metaphor of "dialogue" to describe a properly functioning political process. The new "process" focus is most likely necessary in a society so radically polarized on substantive issues of public policy like abortion and affirmative action; where there is little agreement on substance it makes sense to talk rather than fight. Yet "dialogue," especially dialogue at a high level of abstraction, can produce harmful results. It may more mask domination than produce consensus. This essay argues that we should accept no less than what I term "deep dialogue" as the appropriate model for constitutional practice. "Deep" is used in two separate but interrelated senses. First, it refers to discussions that attend to emotions as well as abstract reason. We must candidly face our feelings of ambivalence towards our potential interlocutors if we hope to discover a basis for meaningful dialogue. Secondly, the decision to enter into dialogue implies an attitude of communal sympathy towards our interlocutors. This sympathy in turn requires a dialogue "deep" in the sense that it reaches beyond talk to action. Paradoxically, immediate action to redress the misdeeds of the past is a prerequisite to any meaningful social dialogue on the future. This essay hopes to illustrate these points by rereading the work of Cass Sunstein, a constitutional "dialogue" theorist, in light of insights gleaned from a study of James Joyce's short story "The Dead." I hope that my admittedly unorthodox method will not only lead the