Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-25T17:15:39.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discursive Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

JOHN S. DRYZEK  and
SIMON NIEMEYER
JOHN S. DRYZEK*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
SIMON NIEMEYER*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
*
John S. Dryzek is Australian Research Council Federation Fellow and Professor of Political Science, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia ([email protected]).
Simon Niemeyer is Fellow in the Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democracy can entail the representation of discourses as well as persons or groups. We explain and advocate discursive representation; explore its justifications, advantages, and problems; and show how it can be accomplished in practice. This practice can involve the selection of discursive representatives to a formal Chamber of Discourses and more informal processes grounded in the broader public sphere. Discursive representation supports many aspects of deliberative democracy and is especially applicable to settings such as the international system lacking a well-defined demos.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 481 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alker, Hayward, and Sylvan, David. 1994. “Some Contributions of Discourse Analysis to Political Science.” Kosmopolis 24 (3): 5–25.Google Scholar
Ankersmit, Frank R. 2002. Political Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barry, John, and Proops, John. 1999. “Seeking Sustainability Discourses with Q Methodology.” Ecological Economics 28: 337–45.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, S.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 67–94.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Lomasky, Loren. 1993. Democracy and Decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brulle, Robert J. 2000. Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 1997. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Castiglione, Dario, and Warren, Mark E.. 2006. “Rethinking Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues.” Presented at the Conference on Rethinking Democratic Representation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–26.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity, ed. Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P.. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 17–34.Google Scholar
Davies, B. B., Sherlock, K., and Rauschmayer, F.. 2005. “Recruitment', ‘composition’, and ‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?” Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy 23 (4): 599–615.Google Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 729–43.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2001. “Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29 (5): 651–69.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Berejikian, Jeffrey. 1993. “Reconstructive Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 87 (1): 48–60.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Holmes, Leslie T.. 2002. Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses Across Thirteen Countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Niemeyer, Simon John. 2006. “Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 634–49.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Potter, Jonathan. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon, ed. 1986. The Multiple Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Erik O. 2006. “Democratic Legitimacy: Working Agreement or Rational Consensus?” Centre for the Study of the Professions, Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Estlund, David. 1997. “Beyond Fairness of Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, James. 2006. Africa in the Neoliberal World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 1986. “Laundering Preferences.” In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Elster, J. and Hylland, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 75–102.Google Scholar
Grant, Ruth W., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2005. “Accountability and the Abuse of Power in World Politics.” American Political Science Review 99: 29–44.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D.. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and Gillett, Grant. 1994. The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2006. “Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 54: 486–508.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1981. What's Fair? American Beliefs About Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret. 2003. “Governance Regimes and the Politics of Discursive Representation.” In Transnational Activism in Asia, ed. Piper, N. and Uhlin, A.. London: Routledge, 43–60.Google Scholar
Kempton, Willett, Boster, James S., and Hartley, Jennifer A.. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leib, Ethan J. 2004. Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of Government. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (3): 338–68.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, Simon John. 2004. “Deliberation in the Wilderness: Displacing Symbolic Politics.” Environmental Politics 13 (2): 347–72.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Reilly, Benjamin. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Sagoff, Mark. 1988. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2008. “Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected.” Journal of Political Philosophy forthcoming.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William. 2006. “Critical Theory Beyond Habermas.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, ed. Dryzek, J. S., Honig, B., and Phillips, A., Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 85–105.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1999. “Enough of Deliberation: Politics is About Interests and Power.” In Deliberative Politics, ed. Macedo, S.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 28–38.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2000. “Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes.” Yale Law Journal 110 (1): 71–119.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis. 1999. “Democratic Theory and Global Society.” Journal of Political Philosophy 7: 111–25.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1999. “Deliberation, and What Else?” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, S.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 58–69.Google Scholar
Watson, Gary. 1975. “Free Agency.” Journal of Philosophy 62 (8): 205–20.Google Scholar
Weaver, Kimberlee, Garcia, Stephen M., Schwarz, Norbert, and Miller, Dale T.. 2007. “Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion from Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 821–33.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.