Group Representation and Deliberative Liberalism

  • Katherine Smits


The interest pluralism model explored in chapter three is reflected in what remained until the 1990s the dominant paradigm for understanding democratic politics in Western democracies. As Dahl described the system of polyarchy, the competition between interests drove and contained the political process. Those with shared interests organized with the rational aim of capturing the support of legislators, who in turn competed for the support of organized interest groups. Those with political claims that could not be formulated in terms of competing interests were marginalized from the political process. As a result, identity claims that originally concerned recognition were for the most part expressed and interpreted in terms of the demands of interest.


Identity Group Identity Politics Deliberative Democracy Democratic Politics Participatory Democracy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 19–20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For a critique of the paradigm (to which I will later return) see Lynn M. Sanders, “Against Deliberation,” Political Theory 25, 3 (June 1997): 347–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    For example, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1996), 1–5.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    For an influential early assessment from a theoretical perspective, see Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  5. See also the essays in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman, eds., Participation in Politics (NOMOSXVI) (New York, 1975).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    These criticisms are detailed by Nancy Rosenblum in Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 319–39. See also K. Anthony Appiah, “Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and Social Reproduction,” in Multiculturalism, ed. Gutmann, 149–63.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    See e.g., Ian Shapiro “Enough of Deliberation: Politics is about Interests and Power” and Iris Marion Young, “Justice, Inclusion and Deliberative Democracy,” both in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Stephen Macedo (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 28–38, 151–8.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    In an early statement, Joshua Cohen argued that deliberative outcomes should be settled only by reference to the reasons offered by participants. See Cohen, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 23. For an argument that reasons need to be acceptable to a hypothetical third party, seeGoogle Scholar
  10. Jodi Dean, Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism after Identity Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Jurgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Young argues for “communicative,” rather than “deliberative” democracy, on the grounds that the former allows more latitude in the forms of speech recognized. Communicating ideas becomes crucial, rather than arguing them. See Young, “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,” in Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Changing Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 122–5.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    Plato, “The Apology” in Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. W.H.D. Rouse (New York: Mentor, 1956), 423.Google Scholar
  14. 25.
    Frow, “A Politics of Stolen Time,” Meanjin, 57, 2 (1998): 362–3.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    This practice has arguably amounted to attempted genocide. See Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Enquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia, 1997).Google Scholar
  16. 28.
    For a useful discussion see Mitchell F. Rice and Martin Carcasson, “The Promise and Failure of President Clinton’s Race Initiative of 1997–1998: A Rhetorical Perspective,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 2, 2 (1999): 249–50.Google Scholar
  17. 29.
    In the Australian case, see the letter from Senator Herron, the minister for aboriginal affairs, to Father Frank Brennan, cited in Robert Manne, “In Denial, the Stolen Generations and the Right,” Australian Quarterly Essay 1 (2001): 75. In the American case, see “Clinton Opposes Slavery Apology,” US News and World Report, April 6, 1998, 7. A parliamentary resolution was eventually passed in Australia in 1999, expressing regret for past injustices. It was a vague statement, however, which did not refer to specific practices.Google Scholar
  18. 33.
    This is a frequent charge made by opponents of apology and reparations. See e.g., Armstrong Williams, “Presumed Victims,” in Should America Pay? ed. Raymond Winbush (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), 165–71.Google Scholar
  19. 34.
    See e.g., Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Politics and Forgiveness,” in Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict, ed. Nigel Biggar (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001), 44.Google Scholar
  20. 36.
    Melissa S. Williams, Voice, Trust and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  21. 41.
    See David Liddle, “Djerrkura Wants Black Seats in Parliament,” Land Rights Queens Land March 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 43.
    See e.g., Lani Gunier, The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1994) andGoogle Scholar
  23. Douglas J. Amy, Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 45.
    In her discussion of intersectionality, Kimberle Crenshaw suggests an excellent example of the way in which the groups that should be consulted in determining policy toward an issue area emerge out of the facts of the issue itself. In a study of social policies dealing with domestic violence, Crenshaw demonstrates that policies concerning the provision of services and funds to victims have been set by white, middle-class women in government and social authorities. They are, however, ineffective in addressing the problems of poor, minority women who are victims of domestic violence. Bringing in women with different class and race intersecting identities to help determine how shelters are run and funds are spent will result in more effective policy solutions. See Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color,” in The Public Nature of Private Violence ed. Martha Albertson Fineman and Rixanne Mykitiuk (New York: Routledge, 1994), 93–118.Google Scholar
  25. 47.
    James Jennings, “The Politics of Black Empowerment in Urban America: Reflections on Race, Class and Community,” in Dilemmas of Activism: Class, Community and the Politics of Local Mobilization, ed. Joseph S. King and Prudence S. Posner (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 128. The movement for community control of schools suffered a major setback when conflict between parents and teachers over governance at a school in the Oceanhill-Brownsville section of Brooklyn led to a city-wide strike by the United Federation of Teachers in 1968.Google Scholar
  26. 49.
    Peter Finn, Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation (US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2001).Google Scholar
  27. 50.
    Richard J. Terrill, “Civilian Oversight of the Police Complaints Process in the United States: Concerns, Developments and More Concerns,” in Complaints against the Police: The Trend to External Review, ed. Andrew J. Goldsmith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  28. Cathy J. Cohen, “Straight Gay Politics: The Limits of an Ethnic Model of Inclusion,” in Ethnicity and Group Rights, ed. Shapiro and Kymlicka, 575; Donald B. Rosenthal, “Regime Change and Gay and Lesbian Politics in Four New York Cities,” in Culture Wars and local Politics, ed. Elaine B. Sharp (Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press, 1999), 66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Katherine Smits 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine Smits

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations