TY - JOUR
AU - Hendriks, Carolyn M
AB - Abstract Deliberative forms of governance are on the rise worldwide as governments, businesses and not-for-profit organisations seek to engage with their constituents. Empirical research on these deliberative experiments is beginning to emerge; with most studies focussing on how well deliberative practice lives up the ideals of deliberative democracy. Little, however, is known about how the practice of deliberative governance negotiates and accommodates different forms of power prevalent in the policy process. This is the subject of this special issue. This introductory piece provides an overview of how theories of deliberative democracy relate to both coercive (‘power-over’) and generative forms of power (‘power-with’). Drawing on insights from the empirical research in this special issue, the paper argues that power is not necessarily a negative force for public deliberation. Indeed coercive forms of power may be needed by some marginalized groups to push their issue onto the agenda, while more generative forms of power can inspire actors to engage in collective thinking. 1 Introduction Most of us have participated in debates on public policy where we feel our voices are not being heard or where the agenda is predetermined or where the rules of engagement exclude particular ideas or perspectives. Such conditions represent some of the many ways that power can potentially influence how people engage in policy deliberations, and the equality and legitimacy of the outcomes. In this special issue we explore the issue of power and its various roles in deliberative governance. The central idea behind deliberative governance is that policy making requires spaces where different institutions, agencies, groups, activists and individual citizens can come together to deliberate on pressing social issues. Such spaces might be spontaneous bottom-up networks (Hajer, 2003); sustained interactive arrangements, such as, collaborative dialogues and neighbourhood councils (Fung & Wright, 2001; Innes & Booher, 2003); or they might be highly structured deliberative designs such as citizens’ juries or consensus conferences (see Gastil & Levine, 2005). What differentiates all these procedures from conventional consultation activities is that they typically strive for inclusive and deliberative goals (Carson & Hartz-Karp, 2005). They are inclusive because they extend public involvement in policy development beyond bureaucrats and experts. The central motivation here is a democratic one: that legitimate policy decisions should involve those affected by a decision (Dryzek, 2001), not just the specialists or elites (Leighninger, 2006). There are also pragmatic reasons why we might want to involve the broader community in policy decisions, for example, to access their knowledge and resources, and to encourage cooperation and efficient implementation. The deliberative goal is perhaps even more ambitious. According to the normative ideal of deliberative democracy, deliberation is a communicative process in which actors are informed about a policy issue, consider its complexities, and reason together in view of the better argument (Dryzek, 2000). Ideally deliberators hold open preferences and provide reasons for their arguments in terms that others may appreciate and accept (Benhabib, 1996b). This is the deliberative ideal and in the rough and tumble of everyday policy making, deliberative governance often falls short of these aspirations (e.g. Button & Mattson, 1999; Mendelberg, 2002; Parkinson, 2006). Since the mid-1990s governments and various non-profit organisations have been experimenting with different kinds of deliberative governance (Barnes, Newman, & Sullivan, 2007; Fung & Wright, 2003b; Gastil & Levine, 2005; Ryfe, 2002). This trend has been in part a response to declining trust in government and the need to demonstrate greater transparency and accountability. But there have been other significant drivers (for a good overview, see Head, 2007). Contemporary communities demand opportunities to be involved meaningfully in policy decisions that affect them. According to deliberative democrats, periodic voting is insufficient in this respect largely because it relies on the aggregation of pre-determined preferences, rather than the formation of collective decisions through public deliberation (Elster, 1997). At the same time decision makers are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of opening up issues to public debate, and the value of public knowledge. The push for greater community involvement in public policy has also been supported by public management reform agendas that emphasise ‘user’ involvement (Barnes et al., 2007; Parkinson, 2004) and international calls for more open participatory decision making (e.g. OECD, 2000, 2001). On the backside of this boom in deliberative practice have been some questionable developments for democracy. In some instances decision makers (mis)use deliberative processes to push specific agendas and manufacture legitimacy (e.g. Harrison & Mort, 1998; Hindmarsh & Matthews, 2008; Wallington, Lawrence, & Loechel, 2008). At the same time there has been a growth in the ‘deliberative consulting industry’ where commercial imperatives push the sale of deliberative goods and services such as process design, facilitation and evaluation (Hendriks & Carson, 2008). The growth in deliberative forms of governance deserves the attention of public policy scholars. While empirical research is emerging, much of the analytic focus has been on how well deliberative practice performs against the norms of deliberative democracy (for surveys, see Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004; Mendelberg, 2002; Ryfe, 2005; Steiner, Bächtiger, Spörndli, & Steenbergeren, 2004). To date these studies paint a mixed picture. On the one hand some research suggests that deliberative ideals are difficult to achieve in practice, with some procedures fostering conflict rather than resolving it (Hendriks, 2002; Mendelberg & Oleske, 2000). Other studies indicate that deliberation can indeed thrive under certain procedural conditions and in certain contexts (Fung & Wright, 2003b; Gastil & Levine, 2005). In this special issue we are particularly interested in the empirical question of how deliberative governance works in the context of power. There are many different meanings and forms of power; from the more coercive forms of domination where A exercises control over B (Bachrach & Baratz, 1963), through to the more enabling forms of power generated when people engage in associational life (Arendt, 1958; Follett, 1975). How different varieties of power relate to and affect deliberative governance is unclear. Numerous speculations have been proposed by democratic theorists, yet we know very little about the role of power in the everyday practice and politics of public deliberation. At the heart of theories of deliberative democracy is the idea that deliberation promotes a kind of collective communicative power which neutralizes coercive forms of power such as domination and strategic manipulation (Habermas, 1977). Some democrats, however, contend that coercive forms of power are a necessary component of healthy deliberative democracies when used by counter-publics to fight injustice (Fung, 2005; Mansbridge, 1996). Deliberative democracy's relationship to power has also been the source of considerable critique. Sceptics argue that the presence of coercive forms of power in most political settings makes reasoned debate near impossible (e.g. Shapiro, 1999; Simon, 1999). Other scholars worry that deliberative processes are unable to adequately neutralize the unequal distribution of power amongst different kinds of policy actors, especially the marginalized (Williams, 2000; Young, 1996).1 Our intention with this special issue is to inject insights from empirical studies into these theoretical debates. It builds on a lively panel discussion on the role of empirical research in advancing theoretical debates on power in deliberative governance at the Third International Conference on Interpretive Policy Analysis in Essex in 2008. The three papers presented in the panel by Jennifer Dodge, Tamara Metze, and Marissa Zapata sparked considerable discussion and audience interest. In view of extending this debate, other scholars also looking at power in deliberative governance were then invited to contribute their own empirical findings. This special issue is the product of this fruitful exchange. To be clear our focus is on the nature, role and influence of different forms of power in deliberative processes, rather than on assessing the policy impact of deliberative governance or where it works best. In this introductory piece, I explore the underlying theories of deliberative governance and consider how they relate to different kinds of power. I argue that theoretically the relationship between deliberative democracy and power is highly variable and ambiguous. Depending on how one conceptualizes public deliberation, power can be viewed as an illegitimate force, or as an enabling condition, or both, for effective deliberation. To make sense of this ambiguity, I introduce some of the rich insights from the empirical papers in this special issue. These studies of deliberative governance in practice demonstrate how power comes into deliberative governance in many different ways and at many levels. While coercive forms of power do exist, there are many other subtle forms of power that infuse deliberative practices. Of particular interest to the authors in this issue are discursive forms of power and the unequal distribution of power in society that present particular challenges to achieving equality in deliberative practice. 2 Understanding deliberative governance The practice of deliberative governance has been inspired by deliberative democracy – a growing body of democratic theory that emphasizes the importance of deliberation in collective decision making. Deliberative democrats promote the idea that collective decisions should be informed by a process of public reasoning rather than simply based on the aggregation of votes or the competition of interests. The rationale here is that deliberation “neutralizes the political role of arbitrary preferences and power by putting collective decisions on a footing of common reason” (Cohen & Rogers, 2003, p. 242 emphasis in original). While theorists vary in their view of what deliberation exactly entails – a theme I take up below – most agree that it is a particular form of communication centred on reasoned argument. According to its proponents, deliberative democracy promises informed rational decisions, fairer, more publicly oriented outcomes, and improved civic skills (see Freeman (2002) and Cooke (2000)). With these and many other promises, it is no surprise that over the past decade the label ‘deliberative democracy’ has spread rapidly throughout political theory.2 A scan of the literature produces a variety of proposals that locate deliberation within the individual (Goodin, 2000), in Socratic-like dialogues between two people (Gunderson, 2003), in associations and groups (Cohen & Rogers, 1995; Mansbridge, 1992), in government-sponsored forums (Gastil & Levine, 2005), amongst elected representatives in parliamentary assemblies (Bessette, 1994; Uhr, 1998); or in the public sphere (Dryzek, 2000; Habermas, 1996). Not surprisingly, attempts to map deliberative democracy have reached the conclusion that it comes in many shapes and sizes (Blaug, 1996; Bohman, 1998; Chambers, 2003; Saward, 2001). For our purposes here it is useful to distinguish between two broad varieties of deliberative theory – micro and macro – which differ in terms of the scale and formality of deliberation (Hendriks, 2006a).3 Micro deliberative theory concentrates on the procedural norms of a deliberative process (Bessette, 1994; Cohen, 1997; Elster, 1997). Ideally, micro deliberation is an activity that takes place in structured forums where relatively free and equal participants come together to decide on an agenda, reason and argue together, and settle on an outcome (Cohen, 1997, p. 73). The key emphasis in micro accounts is that participants are relatively impartial, willing to listen to each other and committed to reaching a mutual understanding in view of the collective good (Bickford, 1996, p. 149; Cohen, 1997). Most micro theorists locate deliberation within conventional decision-making institutions, such as parliamentary assemblies (Bessette, 1994; Elster, 1998; Uhr, 1998). In order to achieve the communicative conditions of micro deliberation, participant numbers tend to be small – hence, the ‘micro’ label. In this respect, micro accounts tend to privilege the reasoning dimension of deliberation over participation. Some deliberative theories focus on the macro or broad scale deliberation that takes place in the public sphere. Here the emphasis is on the unstructured forms of deliberative communication in which people engage in open public discourse via the media, social movements, civil society associations and networks (Benhabib, 1996a; Dryzek, 1990, 2000; Habermas, 1996).4 In this sense macro deliberation can be likened to a ‘public conversation…of mutually interlocking and overlapping networks and associations of deliberation, contestation and argumentation’ (Benhabib, 1996a, p. 74 emphasis in original). Given its more informal orientation, macro deliberation is less concerned with the specific conditions necessary for making binding decisions, and more interested in how the broader set of discussions in public sphere might influence collective decisions (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2008). Ideally both macro- and micro-forms of deliberation co-exist along a spectrum, which has been labelled as the ‘deliberative system’ (Mansbridge, 1999; Parkinson, 2006). In other words, public deliberation takes place in a variety of venues from the everyday talk in the pub through to formal deliberation in decision making institutions such as parliament. In practice most deliberative forums (or moments of micro deliberation) are surrounded by a host of discursive activities (macro deliberation). For this reason it is useful to conceptualise the deliberative system not so much as a spectrum of discrete venues but as a discursive space composed of overlapping spheres of public conversation – some fostering micro deliberation, others macro and some mixed forms of deliberation (Hendriks, 2006a). This plural view of public deliberation is finding increasing appeal. According to Thompson's recent review of the field (2008, p. 513): Most deliberative theorists recognize not only that the practice of deliberation may take different forms in different part of the [democratic] process but that it is only one of many desirable modes of decision making. Deliberative democracy is more than a sum of deliberative moments. Recognition of the deliberative system has led to calls for more plural understandings of key concepts in deliberative theory such as reason, the common good, legitimacy, and deliberation (Mansbridge, 2006). In addition, difference democrats have argued strongly to pluralise the idea of ‘reason giving’ such that it incorporates emotions, testimony (Sanders, 1997), story telling, greeting, rhetoric and everyday talk (Mansbridge, 1999; Young, 1996).5 In this special issue we extend this call for ‘deliberative pluralism’ into the realm of power. Drawing on empirical studies, we explore how deliberative governance relates to, and negotiates power in political practice. Overall the papers demonstrate the various ways that power can infuse and shape deliberative practices. Before providing an overview of the papers, some consideration needs to be given to the way different forms of power relate to deliberative governance. 3 Power and deliberative governance As mentioned in the introduction meanings of power abound. Rather than settle on a single definition, each author in this special issue refers to the particular form(s) of power at the centre of their paper. For our discussion here two broad categories are useful—‘power-over’ and ‘power-with’ (Follett, 1975). 3.1 Coercive forms of power ‘Power-over’ occurs when the powerful exert control or domination over the powerless for a desired outcome.6 This is sometimes referred to as coercion where an actor (or set of actors) uses force or threat of sanction to pursue their interests. In other words, ‘A exercises power-over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B interests’ (Lukes, 1974, p. 27). This is a zero-sum understanding of power where someone's gain, is another's loss. ‘Power-over’ has at least three different dimensions (Lukes, 1974): 1. Primary or first dimension power refers to the direct domination of A over B in an observable conflict arena (Gaventa, 1980, pp. 13–14; Lukes, 1974, pp. 11–15). This dimension of ‘power-over’ is the one most closely associated with interest group pluralism for it refers to a bargaining or decision-making process in which there are clear winners and losers. 2. Second dimension power is a more indirect form of ‘power-over’ where A manipulates the rules of the game so that B does what A wants (Gaventa, 1980, pp. 14–15; Guinier & Torres, 2002, pp. 327, fn 313; Lukes, 1974, pp. 16–20). This kind of power creates a ‘mobilising bias’, for example, by excluding certain participants or issues from politics, or through non-decisions (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1963). 3. The third dimension of ‘power-over’ refers to more subtle forms of control and domination, which can be exerted through observable or physiological means. It occurs when A uses symbols, myths and narratives to manipulatively influence B's reality, including how she perceives her own wants and the inequalities around her (Guinier & Torres, 2002, pp. 327, fn 313; Lukes, 1974, pp. 21–25). It can also involve A shaping how B views the possibilities for change, to the extent where B sees it as inappropriate or even pointless to challenge A's power (Gaventa, 1980, p. 20). Given its subtle and tacit nature, the third dimension of power is difficult to place under surveillance and monitor. ‘Power-over’ is pervasive feature in all democracies and one at the centrepiece of interest group politics. This is the kind of power that is intentionally designed out of structured (micro) deliberative procedures. The general thrust of this argument is that forms of strategic action such as control, domination, manipulation and deception are inconsistent with the communicative conditions necessary for deliberation (see Cohen, 1997). The idea that deliberative procedures contain and expose coercive forms of power has been the source of much of the critique lodged against deliberative democracy. For example, realists are sceptical that micro deliberation could ever proceed in such a manner given the prevalence of competing interests and conflicts in contemporary policy settings (Shapiro, 1999). Other critics argue that the presence of power-over in most policy settings means that for some groups it might not be in their strategic interests to engage in public deliberation (Hendriks, 2006b; Simon, 1999). The most severe critique of the capacity of deliberative procedures to contain ‘power-over’ has come from difference democrats. One of their key concerns is that deliberative procedures cannot neutralize ‘power-over’ since we all possess different capacities to reason.7 Difference democrats contend that formal styles of deliberation have an inherent communicative bias which privileges those more equipped and accustomed to rational debate, such as better-educated, middle-class, white males (Sanders, 1997; Young, 2000, 2001).8 Deliberative forums; Young (2000, pp. 39–40) argues, rely heavily on ‘dispassionate and disembodied’ speech amongst civil, steady, and reasonable participants. This form of communication stifles and excludes other modes of communication such as greeting, rhetoric, and story telling (Young, 1996, pp. 128–132). Difference democrats are also suspicious that orderly and structured deliberative forums can ‘wrongfully exclude’ certain opinions and perspectives from the political discussion (Young, 2000, p. 48). This is particularly the case for weaker groups who rely on ‘non-deliberative’ modes of expression to bring their issues to the public's attention such as rowdy demonstrations, distractive public banners, and disruptive boycotts (Fung, 2005; Young, 2000, 2001). Another relevant claim made by different democrats is that deliberation can reinforce subtle forms of ‘power-over’ such as dominant discourses, gender and cultural biases, and thereby exclude alternative perspectives. Central to this argument is the idea that deliberation is not neutral with respect to social and background conditions. This concern is captured well by Fraser (1992, pp. 122–123) who argues that: …it is not possible to insulate special discursive arenas from the effects of societal inequality and that where societal inequality persists, deliberative processes in public spaces will tend to operate to the advantage of dominant groups and to the disadvantage of subordinates. Difference democrats are wary of situations where communication becomes systematically distorted to such an extent that participants are unaware of the power and injustices underlying different claims, and how decision outcomes might reproduce these injustices (Young, 2001, pp. 685–687).9 In failing to accommodate background relations of power, it is plausible that deliberative procedures might potentially (Cohen & Rogers, 2003, p. 242) “waste the time of those who can least afford its loss: those now subordinate in power.” While difference democrats might be wary of deliberative forums, welcome the more discursive and open forms of public deliberation particularly if they can provide room for self-interest and adversarialism (e.g. Mansbridge, 1996; Mouffe, 1996; Young, 1996). In this sense, ‘power-over’ or coercion is viewed as a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy because it be used by the oppressed in their collective fight against injustices (Medearis, 2004; Young, 2001). A strong advocate of this perspective is Mansbridge, who argues that (1996, p. 55): “[d]emocracies need ways short of civil disobedience and breakdown of normatively based mutual cooperation to recognize and fight the ongoing injustice of their procedures and their outcomes.” She also finds room for partiality and self-interest by suggesting that deliberative enclaves are necessary particularly for subordinated groups to work out what is good for themselves, their group and the polity. In this process both particularist and universalist claims are legitimate. These “enclaves of protected discourse” provide spaces of democratic resistance; they enable counter publics to better understand themselves, form bonds of solidarity, remember past injustices, formulate strategic alliances, and plan collective action (Mansbridge, 1996, p. 58). A central part of Mansbridge's proposal here is that oppositional discourses and cultures provide not only an important role in the struggle for justice, but they can help to keep coercion in check in our democratic systems. Similarly; Fung (2005, p. 412) suggests that when inequality of power is great, the ideal of fair deliberation is difficult to achieve, and under such circumstances it is appropriate for the marginalised to adapt more pluralist strategies such as “bargaining, negotiating purchasing, protesting and more militant tactics”. 3.2 Generative forms of power There is also a more generative notion of power often referred to as ‘power-with’ (or sometimes ‘power-to’).10 This is a community based conception of power, which according to Arendt (1963, p. 174), is a collective force that ‘comes into being only if and when men join themselves together for the purpose of action, and it will disappear when, for what ever reason, they disperse and desert one another’. In other words ‘power-with’ develops through communal activity, for example, when the powerless join together in collective resistance to promote social change (Guinier & Torres, 2002). It is distinct from other forms of power because it is not about domination, nor is it an ever-present repressive force – as some Foucauldians would have it.11 Instead, ‘power-with’ is a positive and creative energy that suggests the notion of empowerment. Also central to this kind of power is participation. As Guinier and Torres explain (2002, p. 141): This power is generative, it involves sharing something or becoming something, not just giving or demanding or consuming. It expands in its exercise. It finds a way to call on people to connect with something larger than themselves. Most (micro) deliberative procedures are designed to shift the debate from one shaped by ‘power-over’ (domination, manoeuvring and more subtle varieties such as manipulative narratives and symbolic politics) to one more consistent with ‘power-with’. This is largely achieved through the process of deliberation. Ideally deliberative forums promote different kinds of ‘communicative power’ where the collective formation of the better argument is the prevailing force (Arendt, 1963; Habermas, 1977).12 Consistent with the concept of ‘power-with’, communicative power is a type of ‘public power’, which emerges when people engage in free non-coercive forms of communication. When this kind of collective power emerges it makes authority based on anything other than the good argument illegitimate (Dryzek, 1990, p. 56). The deliberative process provides the powerless (for example, marginalized groups, everyday citizens and so on) with a degree of autonomy to collectively reconsider policy issues, and in some cases, the possibility to redefine the ‘problem’ itself. Theorists in favour of more (macro) discursive forms of deliberation also celebrate the generative capacity of ‘power-with’ such as the communicative power of discourses (or set of ideas) (Dryzek, 2000), the collective power of social movements (Habermas, 1996), and the role of counter publics (Fraser, 1992). Rather than rely on deliberative procedures to curtail coercive forms of power, the idea here is that communicative power will be generated by ‘indigenous’ actors in the public sphere, such as social movements, who stimulate counter-knowledge and ask critical questions (Dryzek, 2000, chap. 4; Habermas, 1996, p. 135). Some have argued that this reliance on the communicative power of the public sphere is utopian. For example, discursive (or macro) forms of deliberation might easily collapse into a kind of ‘marketplace of ideas’ where the loudest and best-resourced sectors of society dominate the public conversation (Christiano, 1996; Fraser, 1992, pp. 121–122). While most macro theorists acknowledge the potential communicative distortions within the public sphere (e.g. Habermas, 1996, pp. 307–308), they overestimate its capacity to self-rectify, and downplay the prevalence of ‘bad civil society’ (Chambers, 2002; Hendriks, 2006a). In this sense coercive forms of power remain untamed much like in interest group pluralism; when oppressed groups are unable to generate enough discursive power in the public realm, it is inevitable that the strongest interests will prevail (Hendriks, 2006a; Kohn, 2000: 423–424). There are also a host of other reasons to be concerned about the capacity of particular groups in civil society to forge macro deliberation. As Fung and Wright (2003a) argue, many social movements and advocacy groups are driven by large national professional organisations that are more accustomed to working through adversarial rather than collaborative means. Many of these lack the kinds of competencies and cognitive frames necessary for open public deliberation. 4 Insights from empirical research on deliberative governance These theoretical debates on the role of power in deliberative governance are beginning to be informed by empirical research. Some studies find that deliberation can take place in unlikely settings: for example, where there are significant cultural divides (O’Flynn, 2006), in international negotiations (Risse, 2000), on sensitive issues (Wagenaar, 2006), and in the context of adversarial settings (Hendriks, 2006b; McLaverty & Halpin, 2008). Yet there remains much more to learn about how deliberative governance works in the context of everyday politics (Thompson, 2008). Herein lies a timely challenge for this special issue: how can empirical studies of deliberative governance inform our understanding of the role of power in public deliberation? Research on the role of power in deliberative practice is still in its infancy (see Cohen & Rogers, 2003). Some studies suggest that different forms of ‘power-over’ are prevalent within most forums, for example in terms of inequalities in access, communicative style and so on (e.g. Barnes, 2002; Mendelberg & Oleske, 2000). However, the emerging picture is that in many deliberative venues the influence of these more subtle forms of ‘power-over’ is not as exclusionary as difference democrats fear (Cohen & Rogers, 2003). Particularly important here is the role that procedural issues can play in curtailing unproductive forms of ‘power-over’, for example by selecting participants that are less partisan or interested in gaining power (Carson & Martin, 1999; Hendriks, Dryzek, & Hunold, 2007) or that the deliberations are independently facilitated (Carson, 2002). Other empirical studies highlight the role and prevalence of coercive forms of power that operate outside the forum (Hendriks, 2006b). We seem to know far less about how deliberative governance relates to the more empowering or generative forms power. According to Fung (2003), different deliberative procedures have differing capacities to empower. Empirical studies of citizens’ forums, such as policy juries and consensus conferences, find that as a result of deliberation citizens are more self-confident, knowledgeable, and have greater awareness of, and engagement in politics (Hendriks, 2005; O’Neill, 2003). Similarly Niemeyer (2004) finds that deliberative processes can result in considerable discursive shifts. Experiences from the broader field of collaborative planning and policy mediation remind us that there is indeed an art to creating moments of empowered deliberation (Forester, 1999; Innes & Booher, 2003; Susskind, McKearnan, & Thomas-Larmer, 1999). Even less is known about the way power operates within a broader deliberative system. Hendriks (2006b) finds that certain actors resort to more coercive forms of power when they are excluded or exclude themselves from a (micro) deliberative procedure. A study by McLaverty and Halpin (2008) suggests that the capacity of a deliberative system to foster forms of ‘power-with’ is more than mere procedural design; it also relates to the trust that develops over time between participants. This special issue builds on these studies and contributes new empirical research into how different forms of power play out in the practice of deliberative governance. Each author presents a rich narrative of events surrounding a particular deliberative forum located in the policy process. Collectively the papers provide insights into how deliberative ideals are applied in diverse political contexts, and the challenges they confront. The authors work towards building theories of the middle range (Merton, 1968) by accounting for the dynamics of power and politics in their cases. In doing so this special edition seeks to push the theoretical boundaries of deliberative democracy, particularly its capacity to accommodate the many non-deliberative elements of contemporary policy contexts. All articles in the special issue empirically consider the interrelationships between power and public deliberation. They are, however, diverse in two important respects. First, the papers explore the practice of different kinds of deliberative processes in various political and cultural contexts. Second, the analytic focus of each article is different especially with respect to power. Some papers draw attention to the way different kinds of power can both enable but also constrain deliberative governance. In his paper on local participatory planning programs in Egypt, Stephen Connelly explores the tensions between deliberative governance and the power-laden context of everyday policy making. The cultural and democratic context of Egypt highlights the need for deliberative democrats to attend more seriously to the broader institutional and discursive structures within which deliberative procedures operate. Connelly's study also illustrates how power can be an enabling force for public deliberation; for example, those in power can provide institutional support and political will to bring about a deliberative process. Other papers are specifically focused on the particular kinds of power that emerge within micro deliberative forums. For example, Marisa A. Zapata examines how inequalities in the public sphere can be addressed within a micro deliberative process. Her study centres on a deliberative planning exercise convened by a not-for-profit-organisation in the ethnically diverse region of California's Central Valley. Zapata explores how deliberative processes in practice seek to address issues of ‘difference’ and associated power inequalities. She identifies two significant design issues: (1) the need to recognize difference when selecting participants and ascribing roles and (2) keeping the agenda relative open. Zapata's study also suggests that the differences in power relationships amongst participants are less problematic when the deliberation is future oriented rather than aimed at an immediate decision outcome or policy action. Ricardo F. Mendonça's paper also looks specifically at the role of power within (micro) deliberative forums, particularly in the process of argumentation. Drawing on an empirical study of a deliberative forum on the future of Hansen's disease colonies in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Mendonça studies how participants argumentatively build unequal positions by grounding their arguments in forms of power other than reason, for example by mobilising discursive resources to enhance their credibility and authority. Though these represent manifestations of power, Mendonça argues that many of these discursive inequalities are challenged through argumentative processes. Other papers in the special issue address the way power is used by actors in and outside the forum to promote their interests or to enable deliberation. Here there are some fascinating insights into what happens to power when the worlds of micro and macro deliberation interface. For example, Jennifer Dodge studies how activists use and respond to power within a deliberative system. Through an in-depth study of an American activist organisation promoting environmental justice, Dodge uncovers the kinds of discursive and coercive strategies that activist groups employ to both push their policy agenda, and respond to counter arguments and forces. In the end Dodge finds that activist groups can gain considerable power through the discursive strategies they employ because they can be used both within and outside formal deliberative settings. Similarly, Tamara Metze examines the discursive practices that actors adopt in and around deliberative processes. Her empirical study centres on a number of deliberative forums used to discuss the redevelopment of old industrial sites for the creative economy in the Netherlands. Metze shows how deliberative processes can destabilise dominant policy discourses, and enable the emergence of new discourses to enter the policy debate. This occurs not only through procedural means such as designing rules, protocols and structures but by the discursive work of actors as they inject new ideas into the policy debate in a way that utilizes concepts associated with older discourses. Though centred on power, the empirical studies also speak to a number of relevant debates within deliberative democracy. For example, how do structured (micro) deliberative forums interact variously with their macro discursive context, how do deliberative processes accommodate difference and inequality, and how well do deliberative ideals work in non-western political contexts. 5 Conclusions Together the papers in this special issue demonstrate that deliberative governance is clearly alive and active in a diversity of political settings and used in a variety of policy areas. We learn how deliberative procedures are being instigated by a host of institutions located both within and outside the state. In some cases the deliberations are intended to directly influence particular policy decisions, whereas in other cases the aim is to stimulate public debate to subtly reconfigure the policy landscape. Together the papers present a rich array of methodological approaches to studying the practice of deliberative governance. The authors draw on different concepts and methods to inform their analysis including boundary concepts, argumentative structures, and discourse analysis. The empirical cases presented in this special issue suggest that in practice overt forms of ‘power-over’ are less problematic for deliberative forums than theorists worry about. What seem to be more prevalent are the more subtle forms of ‘power-over’ that stem from inequalities amongst participants. Within a given deliberative forum there are likely to be significant power differentials between participants, for example, due to cultural background (Zapata), argumentative approaches (Mendonca), discursive practices (Metze, Dodge), or status and political positions (Connelly). Moreover existing institutions and norms (Connelly, Metze and Dodge) can create subtle power differentials that make it easier for some actors to access and influence public deliberation than others. And as difference democrats predict, the studies in this special issue find that there are indeed many actors (particularly the marginalised) that are more comfortable giving testimony or storytelling than engaging in reasoned debate aimed at decision making (Zapata, Metze). However, the studies also suggest that to a certain extent procedural design can accommodate the communicative preferences of different actors. For example, deliberative forums can be complemented by alternative modes of engagement such as using cartoonists and drawings, scenarios, field trips and listening sessions. While procedural design may address some of the power differentials within a deliberative forum, the empirical studies in this special issue also illustrate the ubiquitous nature of power in public deliberation. It pervades the very process of argumentation (Mendonça) and communication (Zapata), affects how deliberative procedures are organised and their remit (Connelly), and shapes the broader policy context (Dodge, Metze). Furthermore, actors use power in and around deliberative processes variously; they may employ coercive forms of power (‘power-over’) for strategic purposes, but they may also engage in a host of discursive practices to get their message onto the agendas and to address inequalities (Dodge, Metze). Finally, the papers demonstrate that the role and influence of coercive forms of power varies considerably between deliberative processes; power is potentially more disruptive for effective deliberation when the process is focused on making a decision on an immediate policy concern. Herein, perhaps, lies an irony for deliberative governance, for these are exactly the kinds of policy instances, one might argue, where more public deliberation is needed. However, rather than try to avoid the disruptive aspects of power in public deliberation, democrats might be better served by acknowledging that in any deliberative system different kinds of arenas will attend to different kinds of power, or as Mansbridge (1996, p. 56) puts it: “different arenas facilitate critiques of power from different directions.” In this way power need not always be viewed as ‘problematic’ for public deliberation. On the contrary, deliberation needs power. Power enables actors to organise and participate in moments of public deliberation, and confront or constrain it when they experience injustice. The challenge for practitioners is to expand their efforts beyond designing out ‘power-over’ from micro deliberative forums, towards encouraging more generative forms of ‘power-with’ within the entire deliberative system. Acknowledgements This paper developed out of a discussant role that I played in a session on power in deliberative governance at the Third International Conference on Interpretive Policy Analysis in Essex in June 2008. I would like to thank participants in this session, particularly Jennifer Dodge, Tamara Metze, and Marissa Zapata. For their insights and suggestions I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewers, Stephen Connelly and Ricardo Mendonça. This special issue would not have been possible without the encouragement of Michael Howlett and the editorial work of Jessica Yom. References H. Arendt . Human condition. 1958 ; The University of Chicago Press : Chicago H. Arendt . On revolution. 1963 ; Viking : New York H. Arendt . On violence. 1970 ; The Penguin Press : London P. Bachrach , M.S. Baratz. The two faces of power . American Journal of Political Science Review . 16 ( 4 ): 1962 ; 947 – 952 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat P. Bachrach , M.S. Baratz. Decisions and non-decisions: An analytical framework . American Political Science Review . 57 ( 3 ): 1963 ; 632 – 642 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M. Barnes . Bringing difference in deliberation? Disabled people, survivors and local governance . Policy and Politics . 30 ( 3 ): 2002 ; 319 – 331 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M. Barnes , J. Newman, H. Sullivan. Power participation and political renewal: Case studies in public participation. 2007 ; The Policy Press : Bristol S. Benhabib . Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. S. Benhabib. Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political . 1996 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ 67 – 94 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC S. Benhabib . Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political . 1996 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC J.M. Bessette . The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American National Government. 1994 ; University of Chicago Press : Chicago S. Bickford . The dissonance of democracy—Listening conflict and citizenship. 1996 ; Cornell University Press : Ithaca R. Blaug . New theories of discursive democracy: A user's guide . Philosophy & Social Criticism . 22 ( 1 ): 1996 ; 49 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Bohman . Public deliberation—Pluralism complexity and democracy. 1996 ; The MIT Press : Cambridge, MA J.F. Bohman . The coming age of deliberative democracy . Journal of Political Philosophy . 6 ( 4 ): 1998 ; 399 – 423 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M. Button , K. Mattson. Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation . Polity . 31 ( 4 ): 1999 ; 609 – 637 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M. Canovan . A case of distorted communication. A note on Habermas and Arendt . Political Theory . 11 ( 1 ): 1983 ; 105 – 116 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Carson , L. ( 2002 ). Democratic systems sustained by skilful mediation. Paper presented at the international sociological association conference . Brisbane , 7–13 July. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC L. Carson , J. Hartz-Karp. Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries polls and forums. J. Gastil, P. Levine. The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century . 2005 ; Jossey-Bass : San Francisco 120 – 138 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC L. Carson , B. Martin. Random selection in politics. 1999 ; Praeger Publishers : Westport S. Chambers . A critical theory of civil society. S. Chambers, W. Kymlicka. Alternative conceptions of civil society . 2002 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ 90 – 110 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC S. Chambers . Deliberative democracy theory . Annual Review of Political Science . 6 2003 ; 307 – 326 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat T. Christiano . Deliberative equality and democratic order. I. Shapiro, R. Hardin. Political order . 1996 ; New York University Press : New York 251 – 287 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Cohen . Deliberation and democratic legitimacy . J.F. Bohman, W. Rehg. Deliberative democracy . 1997 ; The MIT Press : Cambridge, MA 67 – 91 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat J. Cohen , J. Rogers. Secondary associations and democratic governance . J. Cohen, J. Rogers. Associations and democracy . 1995 ; Verso : London 7 – 98 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat J. Cohen , J. Rogers. Power and reason . A. Fung, E.O. Wright. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance . 2003 ; Verso : London 237 – 255 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat M. Cooke . Five arguments for deliberative democracy. Political Studies . 48 ( 5 ): 2000 ; 947 – 969 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC M.X. Delli Carpini , F.L. Cook, L.R. Jacobs. Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature . Annual Review of Political Science . 7 2004 ; 315 – 344 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J.S. Dryzek . Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. 1990 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK J.S. Dryzek . Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics contestations. 2000 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford J.S. Dryzek . Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy . Political Theory . 29 ( 5 ): 2001 ; 651 – 669 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J.S. Dryzek , S. Niemeyer. Discursive representation . American Political Science Review . 102 2008 ; 481 – 493 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Elster . The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. R.E. Goodin, P. Pettit. Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology . 1997 ; Blackwell : Oxford 128 – 142 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Elster . Deliberation and constitution making. J. Elster. Deliberative Democracy . 1998 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK 97 – 122 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fishkin , J. S. , & Lasslett , P. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). Debating deliberative democracy . Oxford : Blackwell Publishing . M.P. Follett . Power. H.C. Metcalf. Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett . 1975 ; Harpers : New York 95 – 116 . 1942. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Forester . The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. 1999 ; The MIT Press : Cambridge, MA M. Foucault . The subject and power. H.L. Dreyfus, P. Rabinow. Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics . 1982 ; Harvester : Brighton Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC N. Fraser . Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. C. Calhoun. Habermas and the public sphere . 1992 ; MIT Press : Cambridge, MA 109 – 142 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC S. Freeman . Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment . Philosophy and Public Affairs . 29 ( 4 ): 2002 ; 371 – 418 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat A. Fung . Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences . Journal of Political Philosophy . 11 ( 3 ): 2003 ; 338 – 367 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat A. Fung . Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world . Political Theory . 33 ( 2 ): 2005 ; 397 – 419 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat A. Fung , E.O. Wright. Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance . Politics and Society . 29 ( 1 ): 2001 ; 5 – 41 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat A. Fung , E.O. Wright. Countervailing power in empowered participatory governance. A. Fung, E.O. Wright. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance . 2003 ; Verso : London 259 – 289 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fung , A. , & Wright , E. O. (Eds.). ( 2003b ). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance . London : Verso . J. Gastil , P. Levine. The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century . 2005 ; Jossey Bass : San Francisco Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Gaventa . Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. 1980 ; Claredon Press : Oxford R.E. Goodin . Democratic deliberation within . Philosophy and Public Affairs . 29 ( 1 ): 2000 ; 81 – 109 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat L. Guinier , G. Torres. The Miner's Canary: Enlisting race, resisting power transforming democracy. 2002 ; Harvard University Press : Cambridge, MA A.G. Gunderson . The Socratic citizen: A theory of deliberative democracy. 2003 ; Lexington Books : Lanham, MD A. Gutmann , D. Thompson. Democracy and disagreement. 1996 ; The Belknap Press : Cambridge, MA J. Habermas . On systematically distorted communication . Inquiry . 13 1970 ; 205 – 218 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Habermas . Hannah Arendt's communications concept of power . Social Research . 44 ( 1 ): 1977 ; 3 – 24 . Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat J. Habermas . Between facts and norms . 1996 ; Polity Press : Cambridge, UK Tranlated by Willam Rehg. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC M. Hajer . A frame in the fields: Policy making and the reinvention of politics. M. Hajer, H. Wagenaar. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society . 2003 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge 88 – 110 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC S. Harrison , M. Mort. Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation . Social Policy and Administration . 32 ( 1 ): 1998 ; 60 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat N. Hartsock . Political Change: two perspectives on power. Building Feminiist theory: Essays from quest . 1981 ; Longman : New York pp. 3 – 9 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC B. Head . Community engagement—Participation on whose terms? . Australian Journal of Political Science . 42 ( 3 ): 2007 ; 441 – 454 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat C.M. Hendriks . Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: Roles, tensions and incentives . Australian Journal of Public Administration . 61 ( 1 ): 2002 ; 64 – 75 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat C.M. Hendriks . Consensus conferences and planning cells: Lay citizen deliberations. J. Gastil, P. Levine. The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century . 2005 ; Jossey-Bass : San Francisco 80 – 110 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC C.M. Hendriks . Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy . Political Studies . 54 ( 3 ): 2006 ; 486 – 508 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat C.M. Hendriks . When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation . Politics and Society . 34 ( 4 ): 2006 ; 1 – 32 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat C.M. Hendriks , L. Carson. Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy . Policy Sciences . 41 ( 4 ): 2008 ; 293 – 313 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat C.M. Hendriks , J.S. Dryzek, C. Hunold. Turning up the heat: Partisanship in deliberative innovation . Political Studies . 55 ( 2 ): 2007 ; 362 – 383 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat R. Hindmarsh , C. Matthews. Deliberative speak at the turbine face: Community engagement, wind farms and renewable energy transitions in Australia . Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning . 10 ( 3 ): 2008 ; 217 – 232 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J.E. Innes , D.E. Booher, Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue . M. Hajer, H. Wagenaar. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society . 2003 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge 33 – 59 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC M. Kohn . Language, power and persuasion: Towards a critique of deliberative democracy. Constellations . 7 ( 3 ): 2000 ; 408 – 429 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC M. Leighninger . The Next form of Democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance and why politics will never be the same . 2006 ; Vanderbilt University Press : Nashville OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat S. Lukes . Power: A radical view. 1974 ; Macmillian : London S. Macedo . Deliberative politics . 1999 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Mansbridge . A deliberative theory of interest representation. M.P. Petracca. The politics of interests . 1992 ; Westview Press : Boulder 32 – 57 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Mansbridge . Using power/fighting power: The polity. S. Benhabib. Democracy and difference—Contesting the boundaries of the political . 1996 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ 46 – 66 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC J. Mansbridge . Everyday talk in the deliberative system. S. Macedo. Deliberative politics—Essays on democracy and disagreement . 1999 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford 211 – 239 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Mansbridge . Deliberative democracy” or “democratic deliberation”?. S.W. Rosenberg. Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? . 2006 ; Palgrave Macmillan : Basingstoke 251 – 271 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC P. McLaverty , D. Halpin. Deliberative drift: The emergence of deliberation in the policy process . International Political Science Review . 29 ( 2 ): 2008 ; 197 – 214 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Medearis . Social movements and deliberative democratic theory . British Journal of Political Science . 35 2004 ; 53 – 75 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat T. Mendelberg . The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. M.X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy , SR. Research in micropolitics: Politics, decisionmaking, deliberation and participation . 2002 ; JAI Press : Greenwich, CT 151 – 193 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC T. Mendelberg , J. Oleske. Race and public deliberation . Political Communication . 17 2000 ; 169 – 191 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat R. Merton . Social theory and social structure. 1968 ; Free Press : New York C. Mouffe . Democracy, power and the ‘political’. S. Benhabib. Democracy and difference—Contesting the boundaries of the political . 1996 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ 245 – 256 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC S. Niemeyer . Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics . Environmental Politics . 13 ( 2 ): 2004 ; 347 – 372 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat I. O’Flynn . Deliberative democracy and divided societies. 2006 ; Palgrave Macmillan : New York C. O’Neill . Understanding the impact of participation in a deliberative forum. J. Font. Public participation and local governance . 2003 ; Institut de Ciéncies Polítiques i Socials : Barcelona 201 – 224 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC OECD . Engaging citizens. 2000 ; OECD : Paris OECD . Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation. 2001 ; OECD : Paris J. Parkinson . Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers . Public Administration . 82 ( 2 ): 2004 ; 377 – 395 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Parkinson . Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in democracy. 2006 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford T. Rättilä . Deliberation as public use of reasons—Or what public? Whose reason?. M. Saward. Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association . 2000 ; Routledge : London 40 – 52 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC T. Risse . Let's argue! Communicative action in world politics . International Organization . 54 2000 ; 1 – 39 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Rosenberg , S. W. (Ed.). ( 2006 ). Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern ? Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan . D.M. Ryfe . The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organisations . Political Communication . 19 ( 3 ): 2002 ; 359 – 377 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat D.M. Ryfe . Does deliberative democracy work? . Annual Review of Political Science . 8 2005 ; 49 – 71 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat L.M. Sanders . Against deliberation . Political Theory . 25 ( 3 ): 1997 ; 347 – 376 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M. Saward . Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy . Acta Politica . 36 ( Winter ): 2001 ; 361 – 379 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat I. Shapiro . Enough of deliberation: Politics is about interests and power. S. Macedo. Deliberative politics . 1999 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford 28 – 38 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC W.H. Simon . Three limitations of deliberative democracy. S. Macedo. Deliberative politics . 1999 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford 49 – 57 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC J. Steiner , A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, M.R. Steenbergeren. Deliberative politics in action: A cross-national study of parliamentary debates. 2004 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge L. Susskind , S. McKearnan, J. Thomas-Larmer. The consensus building handbook. 1999 ; Sage Publications : Thousand Oaks D. Thompson . Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science . Annual Review of Political Science . 11 2008 ; 497 – 520 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat J. Uhr . Deliberative democracy in Australia. 1998 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge H. Wagenaar . Democracy and prostitution: Deliberating the legalization of brothels in the Netherlands . Administration & Society . 38 ( 2 ): 2006 ; 198 – 235 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat T. Wallington , G. Lawrence, B. Loechel. Reflections on the legitimacy of regional environmental governance: Lessons from Australia's experiment in natural resource management . Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning . 10 ( 1 ): 2008 ; 1 – 30 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat M.S. Williams . The uneasy alliance of group representation and deliberative democracy. W. Kymlicka, W. Norman. Citizenship in diverse societies . 2000 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford 124 – 152 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC I.M. Young . Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. S. Benhabib. Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political . 1996 ; Princeton University Press : Princeton, NJ 120 – 135 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC I.M. Young . Inclusion and democracy. 2000 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford I.M. Young . Activist challenges to deliberative democracy . Political Theory . 29 ( 5 ): 2001 ; 670 – 690 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Footnotes 1 For a good overview of these arguments, see Cohen and Rogers (2003). 2 The growth and diversity of deliberative democracy can be gauged from key texts and collections. See, for example; Benhabib (1996b); Bohman (1996); Dryzek (1990, 2000); Fishkin and Lasslett (2003); Macedo (1999) and Rosenberg (2006). 3 These represent ideal types only and there are many theorists who fall in between micro- and macro-camps, such as Mansbridge (1999); Bohman (1996); Gutmann and Thompson (1996), and Cohen and Rogers (1995). The macro/micro distinction here corresponds closely to the ‘circumscribed’ and ‘uncircumscribed’ variants of Saward (2001, pp. 365–367); and the ‘rule governed process’ and ‘civil society’ approach of Rättilä (2000, pp. 40–41). 4 Young's (1996) communicative democracy is also consistent with macro accounts of deliberative democracy. 5 Dryzek (2000, p. 57) defines difference democrats as political theorists ‘who stress the need for democratic politics to concern itself first and foremost with the recognition of the legitimacy and validity of the particular perspectives of historically oppressed segments of the population.’ 6 This definition of ‘power-over’ draws from Lukes (1974); Gaventa (1980) and Guinier and Torres (2002, pp. 108–113). 7 Difference democrats make a number of other charges against deliberative democracy, which I do not consider here. For example, I do not discuss their concerns about the force of consensus and unity in deliberative processes (see Young, 2000, pp. 40–44); nor do I look at the concerns of some critical diversity theorists regarding group marginalisation due to the exclusion of certain reasons (see Williams, 2000). 8 The major critique of deliberative democracy along these lines is put forward by Young (1996, pp. 122–125, 2000, pp. 37–40, 2001, pp. 676–681) and Sanders (1997). 9 This concern parallels Habermas’ idea of ‘systematically distorted communication’ (Habermas, 1970). 10 The term ‘power-with’ (or ‘power-to’) is associated variously with authors such as Arendt (1970); Follett (1975), and Hartsock (1981). 11 I am referring here to Foucault's earlier work (which has been the inspiration for many post-modern ideas of power) in which power is characterised as something pervasive, repressive and inescapable. In his later work, Foucault saw power as potentially emancipatory (see Foucault, 1982). 12 It is worth noting that Habermas (1977) reformulates Arendt's conception of ‘communicative power’ by placing more emphasis on a particular kind of communication based on consensus and unity (Canovan, 1983, p. 108). For Habermas (1977, p. 4), ‘communicative power’ is the ‘formation of a common will in a communication directed to reaching agreement.’ He also refers to it as the development of ‘common convictions’ (1977, p. 6) and later as ‘the potential of a common will formed in noncoercive communication’ (1996, p. 147). For a comparison of Habermas’ and Arendt's view of communicative power, see Mansbridge (1996) and Canovan (1983). © 2009 Policy and Society Associates (APSS) This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Deliberative governance in the context of power
JF - Policy and Society
DO - 10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004
DA - 2009-10-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/deliberative-governance-in-the-context-of-power-er614Jq7bJ
SP - 173
EP - 184
VL - 28
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -