Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262028738
- eISBN:
- 9780262327046
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028738.003.0004
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Difference democrats argue that the preoccupation of deliberative democracy with reasoned consensus makes it inimical to diversity and that achieving consensus is not possible in the face of deep ...
More
Difference democrats argue that the preoccupation of deliberative democracy with reasoned consensus makes it inimical to diversity and that achieving consensus is not possible in the face of deep moral divisions and cultural pluralism. They also indict consensus for its tendency to push difference aside. The deliberative requirement of public reason is criticized as posing an unfair obstacle to the already-disadvantaged by depriving them of many effective non-deliberative forms of expression. And deliberative democracy is condemned for placing daunting obstacles in the path of accomplishing persuasion. But none of these criticisms hold up well under scrutiny. An analysis contrasting the environmental justice discourse with the animal rights discourse provides a cautionary tale for diversity-embracing environmentalists, difference democrats, and proponents of consensus-based governance.Less
Difference democrats argue that the preoccupation of deliberative democracy with reasoned consensus makes it inimical to diversity and that achieving consensus is not possible in the face of deep moral divisions and cultural pluralism. They also indict consensus for its tendency to push difference aside. The deliberative requirement of public reason is criticized as posing an unfair obstacle to the already-disadvantaged by depriving them of many effective non-deliberative forms of expression. And deliberative democracy is condemned for placing daunting obstacles in the path of accomplishing persuasion. But none of these criticisms hold up well under scrutiny. An analysis contrasting the environmental justice discourse with the animal rights discourse provides a cautionary tale for diversity-embracing environmentalists, difference democrats, and proponents of consensus-based governance.
