Tomorrow's readings provide some important context for the broader role of argument/deliberation, and are important in setting the context for our class practice. Please go through them. Here are some things you can think about:
What is the role and purpose of the public sphere? How is it different from the private sphere?
What does Mouffe say is the democratic paradox? In what way is argument normative? How is argument/deliberation a form of exclusion? Why does she argue for agonism? How does her argument about agonism differ from Tannen?
What does Dewey mean when he argues that democracy is an attitude? How does Dewey argue that we enact democracy?
In light of these questions, I want you to post a comment in the comments section of this post providing me around a 200 - 300 word response making a case for what you think is the role of argument in a democracy? Is is good for democracy, or bad for it? How does it help us make decision? How does it allow or not allow for inclusiveness? I recommend that you use the reading as a springboard to making your comment. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore analyzing the role of argument in democracy, I believe that it is important to discuss what the goals of democracy are in order to be explicit. In this way, determining the role of argument is less ambiguous and becomes a matter of logically determining its function in determining these goals. I submit that the purpose of democracy is to best approximate a social welfare function based on reasonable utility functions. This should, in theory, be based upon utility functions of every individual. This should follow several properties in order to be fair, such as not being based upon the choices of a single individual, having all persons’ interests regarded (and equally), and so-called Pareto optimality (if a change in the system benefits some and harms none, it should be enacted. Note that this is a type of voting system in which I consider everyone’s existence as prescribing a utility function which automatically counts as their “vote”. The central difficulty with this theory, however, is the challenge of attributing appropriate utility functions, as well as difficulties such as intransitivities and dependence upon irrelavent alternatives (i.e., if X prefers B to C and C to D, he should logically prefer B to D). These last issues shall be ignored presently. There are essentially two approaches to this problem, a “greedy algorithm” which is self-regulating and approximates a global optimum through small, adapting changes, or a more fundamental a priori determination of perfection to be implemented. The problem with the latter, as Mouffe rightly points out, is that the “pluralism of values” within a society means that this cannot be representative of the masses, and as people have selfish interests, it is likely that a system not representing the opinions of most will also not represent their interests very well. Thus, I agree with Mouffe in a sense that something “impure” such as agonism or selfishness can be used to approximate a greater good. Now a rational being is presumed to act in their own self interest, and presumably they are best acquainted with their own preferences. Thus, one efficient algorithm for determining what is the in the best interest of all is allowing each individual a chance to effect social change, bargain, gain supporters, etc. This is the role of argumentation. Through this model of enlightened self-interest, it is hoped that a more just societal system can be attained. It also serves as a type of test to determine whether established norms and procedures are for the greater good by allowing potentially abused or forgotten a platform from which to correct such flaws. Though it clearly fails in some instances, it is hoped that the society will slowly evolve into a more perfect one by degrees. Thus, this seems to be one of the most reliable and swiftest procedures available for accomplishing our goal with the possible exception of autocracy. But in almost all real-life situations, autocrats or monarchs do not act rationally for the good of all and cannot be trusted to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a democracy the purpose of argument is to allow all sides of an issue to be heard and considered. By arguing, citizens will be forced to think about all aspects of an issue or decision. The information exchanged while arguing will allow for a more educated decision to be made. In this case, argument is good for democracy. It challenges ideas and forces people to see the good and bad of every opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn some situations I believe that argument may also be bad for democracy. If emotions are allowed to take over an argument then no “truth” can be found or decision reached. Each party involved will be stubborn in their beliefs and it will lead to the two sides being less willing to work together for the common good.
I think that, overall, argument stimulates thinking and may open some people up to a whole world of ideas that they never would have come up with on their own. Through presenting different viewpoints, arguing the pros and cons of each, and stimulating thought in those that are listening eventually a decision will be reached.
I think that through challenging one another argument allow for inclusiveness. Differing opinions are necessary for an argument to occur in the first place, so through argument different opinions are included. By opening an issue up to debate you allow for the thoughts of many to be heard, not just the facts about the issue.
I agree that argument is good for democracy. I feel that the purpose of a democracy is so that every point of view/idea is being presented. In the process of arguing, different aspects of an issue would be presented and (not always, but sometimes) a middle ground would be formed from converging ideas based on learning what each person has to say and weighing out the pros and cons; this process helps us make decisions. Even though not everyone may agree with the same conclusion (if there one), the majority would rule but that’s pretty much what a democratic government is based on, majority rules.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Trina, it’s not always the case that everyone is rational and willing to hear others’ viewpoints. This could lead to personal attacks, counterproductive, fighting, etc. which would make arguing a bad idea.
But argument as a whole, I believe is still a great idea and process because it helps people in learning more than what they may know (inclusive). Even though along the way of arguing some people may be stubborn and refuse to agree with your opinions, I think the fact that you expressed your opinions to them and the fact that they heard it is what matters. Not everyone will always agree on the same thing.
I think argument has an important role in democracy. It is important for democracy that participants be considered free and equal but also it is important for them to criticize and stand up for their beliefs or their views on whether certain institutions and conditions should change. Therefore, people must speak up which will lead to some conflict, but eventually better, more accommodating solutions. The role of the public sphere is that of deriving a core of common agreed upon meanings for reality. In democracy, it is natural for some arguing and conflicting opinions to take place but it is useful and encouraged because the whole point of democracy is that everyone get access to the information and they get their say in decisions. However, sometimes deliberation can be a form of exclusion in that people can use technical terms that not everyone understands. I also believe in agonism, that there are potentially positive aspects for political conflict, like through debates and deliberative democracy. Dewey puts a new spin on things by seeing democracy as an attitude. I thought this was interesting because he claims it as a personal character and human nature of every human. I think this is an ideality because some people do not act democratically in their personal choices and attitudes and do not wish to. For example, most people believe in equality and equal opportunity but may not consider it appropriate or act bravely enough to stand up for themselves if they are not treated equally. There are also some aspects that people don’t have opinions on enough to stand up for. Overall, democracy should (in my opinion) allow room and promote some argument. Whereas Tannen did not promote agonism and argumentation like Moffe, I believe a moderate level is necessary and helpful for people to come upon their agreed reality.
ReplyDeleteA democratic government is tied integrally to the public’s awareness and its freedom of expressing ideas and information. A successful democracy requires an immense amount of personal effort from each of its citizens – effort which is often shirked in lieu of other, more enjoyable things. Argumentation and debate play critical roles in providing information, criticism, differing opinions, and an open forum for individuals to express their ideas without fear of recrimination. This provides an opportunity for all ideas to be discussed, which is critical to advancing socially, technologically, and philosophically in a society.
ReplyDeleteThe advent of the internet has provided an (effectively) anonymous method of distributing ideas, which has allowed for an explosive increase in individual expression. On the other hand, it has also eliminated the role of personal responsibility – a crucial component of public debate. This has corrupted the forum of virtual debate by removing accountability and casting the reliability of the information provided in doubt. The danger of this “pseudo-debate” becomes apparent when the words of a professor, a 13 year old adolescent, a college student, and a mechanic hold equal footing. While having equal representation is important, it quickly becomes clear that having a clear sense of identity is necessary when holding a meaningful discussion on the finer points of catalytic converters or the topic of plagiarism.
Argumentation is clearly a good and necessary aspect of any functioning democratic government. In a representative government issues need to be argued over not only to find the “correct” solution to a problem, but also to inform the public at large about issues. If no arguments were to take place John Q. citizen would remain even more in the dark about important social issues and how government affects them. In an electoral system in which a sixty percent voter turnout figure is considered very high great pains must be taken to ensure that the public has a forum for ideas to be expressed.
ReplyDeleteCivilized argumentation both within and outside of government has throughout history been a mark of advancement and enlightenment. As forms of government have changed throughout history they have generally moved closer to a form that has its roots in classical liberalism. As liberalism has developed there have been four main “struggles” as outlined by Farheed Zakaria; Church vs. State, Lord vs. King, Protestant vs. Catholic, and Business vs. State, each of these, arguably, represent a shift in control from a small group of people to a larger group through the form of argumentation and debate. As controlling groups become larger the necessity for a public forum of discussion becomes paramount in order to make decisions effectively.
Argumentation is essential for a democracy to function at its highest level. In a democracy individuals need to be allowed to discuss pertinent issues in a non combative way. Now, in a perfect world this would work. However, most issues get distorted and things are said that are twisted or untrue. Still, if arguments were not allowed the real truth would never surface. No matter if you believe democracy was created for justice or upon a set of common beliefs argumentation has its place and is needed for democracy to succeed.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd article, though short, I thought offered great insight on today’s world environment. After reading it, it seems that many points that were being made during the great depression can be applied right now. It seems we are letting history repeat itself and allowing the democratic process just to happen. If anything, this proves the need for argumentation as it is when we discuss ideas that we allow are society to move forward and become more prosperous. By discussing ideas intelligently, society as a whole is benefited and we are less likely to fall into the same mistakes of the past. We do not need to repeat history when it has no business being duplicated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe public space is its own microcosm of power and government, which, as Dewey points out, can be democratic or even totalitarian, depending on our own individual attitudes. If we use the public space in an exclusionary way, then we are enacting totalitarianism on this space. If the public space excludes or marginalizes an individual or group then that inherently reduces the political liberty of that party. In democracies in which the public space is an important force for the exercise of political power, this exclusion from equal consideration thus weakens the democratic character of the society, a character which in turn, becomes the character of the individuals, which itself becomes the nature of the society.
ReplyDelete