!"#$%&'()*+$,*-#'$.% !/'0.-1&23(45%%(67(8#%9*-& 8./-:*3(;.+$'$:#+(<0*.-5=(>.+7(?@=(A.7(B(1C/%7=(DEEF2=(GG7(BHFIBFJ ;/,+$&0*9(,53(Sage Publications, Inc. 8'#,+*(KL43(http://www.

jstor.org/stable/191984 . !::*&&*93(MENMBN?MDD(??3@O
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

AGAINSTDELIBERATION
LYNNM. SANDERS University Chicago of

seemsirrational.' commitment A deliberation opposing ADMITTEDLY,
to deliberation is, after all, a commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements,and overcome conflicts by offering arguments supportedby reasons to our fellow citizens. Deliberativedemocracy promises legitimate-that is, morallyjustifiable and rationallyproducedsolutions to vexing political problems.Especially when these problemsare difficult, affording no clear way to arrive at unequivocally satisfactory recommendsitself becauseit relies on a broadconsidsolutions,deliberation erationof alternative solutions,increasingthe likelihoodthattheperspectives held by all membersof a heterogeneouscommunitywill be given voice. And deliberationis also clarifyingandenlightening,highlightingthe moralissues at stake in politicaldebatesandallowing citizens to elucidatethese issues for themselves. Arguments on behalf of deliberationcontinue to proliferate, and this of reinforcesthe suppositionthat steady streamof endorsements deliberation deliberationenhances democracy.Democratictheoristsnow take deliberation to be the exemplarypracticeor activityfor democrats, they geartheir and argumentstowardits realization.Hence deliberationhas become a standard for the accomplishment democracy: is whatdemocratictheoristsaim for, of it our ideal and our aspiration. When democratictheoristssuggest remodeling ourpolitics, it is in the directionof makingthemmoredeliberative(Gutmann and Thompson 1996). What,then,could be wrongwith deliberation? begin, one mightsimply To be suspiciousof the nearconsensusamongdemocratic theoristson its behalf. It isn't clear,afterall, thatthis wide endorsement itself emergedthrough has a genuinelydeliberativeprocess:democratictheoristsarea select groupwho cannotand do not claim in any way to represent perspectivesof ordinary the
POLMTICAL Vol. THEORY, 25 No. 3, June1997 347-376 0 1997SagePublications, Inc. 347

348

POLMCAL THEORY/ June 1997

citizensconstitute demos on whosebehalf the citizens.Although ordinary deliberation made,therecommendation deliberation are about of arguments is not,typically, not or justified arguments, by especially substantive empiriis cal ones,thatdeliberative citizenswouldthemdemocracy whatordinary selvesrecommend.2 The absenceof this (deliberative) for delibjustification recommending eration doesnotby itselfmakedeliberation antidemocratic. it But obviously of does, I think, justifyan exploration the possibilities arguing for against So deliberation. thatis my enterprise to here. I attempt articulate some reasonswhydeliberation to mightnotappeal ordinary citizens,orat least not to manyresidentsof the UnitedStates,at least not given the way we I suggestthattheseobservations live now.And,correspondingly, provide shouldnot necessarily automatically some reasonswhy deliberation and either. to appeal democratic theorists,

THETROUBLE WITH DELIBERATION

The deliberative ideal might troubleproponents democracy a of for of For number reasons. one thing,it carries conservative antidemocratic or connotations usuallyoverlooked well-intentioned by theorists. Appealsto I deliberation, will argue,have often been fraught with connotations of rationality, reserve,cautiousness, quietude, community, selflessness,and connotations whichin factprobably universalism, undermine deliberation's democratic claims.Moreseriously thanthis,however, thatappealing is to or it as deliberation, taking forgranted an appropriate democratic standard, effect. mayhavea destructive Democratic theorists havearticulated, formal in the terms, prerequisites of deliberation; they have sketchedwhat conditionswould have to be achieved deliberation proceed. for to Foremost among theseconditions the is of achievement mutual citizenswho deliberate respect: mustaddress each otheras equalsandacknowledge status offering this by reasonable, morally to justifiable The arguments eachother. (careful) articulation theseformal of is standards, however, a far cry froman assessment the probability of of them.Intheabsence suchanassessment, of meeting appeals deliberation to do nothing challenge undesirable to an status quo. Most perniciously, even thoughthe requirement mutualrespectis of not another assumed, investigated, expectation associated deliberation with is probably realizedin ourpoliticalculture. Somecitizensarebetterthan othersat articulating arguments rational, their in reasonable terms.Some

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 349

to link the citizens, appear then, already bedeliberating, given tight between and, and to democracy deliberation, appear already be acting democratically.
If we assume that deliberationcannotproceed without the realizationof mutual respect, and deliberationappearsto be proceeding, we may even

havebeenachieved of decidethatconditions mutual mistakenly respect by deliberators. thisway,taking In deliberation a signal democratic as of practice works on democratic paradoxically undemocratically, discrediting seemingly theirarguments in grounds viewsof thosewhoareless likelyto present the deliberative. our political In ways thatwe recognizeas characteristically culture, thesecitizens likelytobethosewhoarealready are underrepresented institutions whoaresystematically and disadin formal political materially racialminorities, vantaged, namelywomen; especially Blacks;andpoorer people. historical connotations on My initialclaimaboutdeliberation's depends thinkers haveappealed it. Thisreview a reviewof how andwhypolitical to has will show thatdeliberation at least a few suspiciousantidemocratic associations. secondandlarger deliberation's My claim,concerning potenonattention particular about to facts tiallycounterproductive effects, depends whenAmerican whathappens citizensactually together deliberate. to get Althoughthese facts are perhaps disheartening, lookingat whatactually in and whentheyseemto go best, happens democratic discussions, noticing alsosuggestswaysto improve democratic discussion theUnitedStates. in in The facts aboutdeliberation American settings,at least as I have whenAmerican gathered them,showthatwhathappens citizens to each talk otheris oftenneither nor trulydeliberative reallydemocratic. is partly, This the butnotonly,because material for prerequisites deliberation unequally are distributed. is partly, notonly,because It but someAmericans morelikely are to be persuasive others, is, to be learned practiced making than that and in that as arguments wouldberecognized others reasonable ones-no matter by or how worthy truetheirpresentations actually It is also because are. some Americans apparently likelythanothers be listened evenwhen are less to to; theirarguments stated are to according conventions reason, aremore of they
likely to be disregarded. Althoughdeliberators will always choose to disregard some arguments,when this disregardis systematicallyassociatedwith the argumentsmade by those we know alreadyto be systematicallydisadvantaged,we should at least reevaluateour assumptionsaboutdeliberation's democraticpotential.Deliberation requiresnot only equalityin resourcesand the guarantee equalopportunity articulate of to persuasivearguments also but in equality in "epistemologicalauthority," the capacity to evoke acknowledgement of one's arguments.

350

/ THEORYJune1997 POLMCAL

not Theseareinsidious within confines the problems, easilyaddressed of which on about arguments deliberation, depend crucially theaccomplishment citizensof mutual by democratic respectfor each other,but are bereftof of this evaluations whether is a realistic Because achievement the possibility. of mutualrespectis practically theoristsshouldask remote,democratic whether on do to the arguments behalfof deliberation anything bringabout of or achievement trulydemocratic, indeedtrulydeliberative, discussions. discussionotherthandeliberation Perhaps modelof democratic a would to attend moredirectly theseinsidious So I conclude essayby this problems. for that suggesting we forgetdeliberation thetimebeing,andtryto imagine a model for democratic mutual politics that more plausiblyencourages that of after respect-something advocates deliberation, all,reallywant.

THELASTING MARRIAGE OF DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY

theorists Democratic arguethatdeliberation cultivates for democracy, has goodreason.Deliberation a badside:its conservative its connotations, in unfortunate manifestations American Yet practice. democratic theorists believethatdeliberation makesdemocracy with pregnant two distinct but related increased and offspring: senseof community. autonomy anexpanded Tocontemporary theorists, enhancing autonomy means, part, in educating citizens consider to policyandbroader political questions rather leaving than these thingsup to a specialized, informed elite. Democratic technically theoristswant deliberation everyone,not for some particular for representatives. of Theyopposepluralist conceptions democracy, especiallyits because "place premium political interest-group variants, no they on participation" (Sunstein 1988,1546). of So advocates democratic deliberation to involveordinary want citizens in the processof rational that decision-making pluralists leaveto experts.3 Sometimes deliberation recommended its educational is for effects,for its to promise makecitizenssmarter, alongthelinesof Mill'ssuggestion On in For Bernard Liberty. example, Maninsays that"political deliberation and ... argumentation constitute of processes education training.... they and themselves" spread light.... thepeopleeducate (1987,354).Thistraining is not a simplematter intellectual of improvement: "Only publicdeliberation andpolitical action allowcitizens realize-bothtomake andtobecome to real aware of-their dignity powers responsible and as and agents judges" (Pitkin andShumer at 1982,44). Deliberation, leastin its mostpromising formula-

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 351

citizens seethings hadpreviously to tions,teaches they overlooked, including and to citizens.Thisis clearly the views of others, therefore becomebetter thekindof thingAckerman hopesforwhenhe suggests baseprejudices that like of will be transformed, worthy and intuitions hatred racism vindicated, and criticism dialogue rational through (1980,353). is not and Autonomy a civicorpolitical, individualistic, project, it is quite also for theorists advocating deliberation its potenusualto finddemocratic seemsdirectly tial to uncovera communal identity. Again,this tendency to liberalism. for linkedto the questfor an alternative interest-group So, issueof the now-defunct example,Sheldon Wolin,in the founding journal that at announced thestateof affairs thedawnof theeighties had democracy, a on a crisisof identity, needto figureout"whowe areas a people" brought and whose1983bookOnDemocracy (Wolin1981,10).AndCohen Rogers, are foundthatin themidstof a lot of whatmight began"These dark times," be calledpoliticking a totalabsence democratic was of community:
of Debatesandprograms actionabound.Think Attemptsat coalition-building proliferate. tanks and policy research institutes steadily multiply. New corporatepolitical action committees and privatenewslettersare borneach day.... But if those who occupy the commandingheightsof privatepoweraremobilizingtheirforces, thosewho live beneath them are in startlingdisarray... there is no common voice (Cohen and Rogers 1983, 16-17).

of voiceis specifically Thepursuit a common posedhereas a remedy the to of accumulation private powerandspecialinterests. deliberation a process political So initsbestortruest is of discussion form, thatexcludesno one. It improves citizensintellectually, heightening all by their to ability consider policyandpolitical problems; personally, allowing by for themto realizetheiruntapped and capacities observation judgment; and or themaboutthepolitical morally civically, teaching by concerns other of citizens byencouraging and mutual Modern respect. advocates democratic of aim deliberation to develop communal sensibilitieswithoutrequiring a education civic virtue.They aspireto replacea in potentially oppressive facelessandpossiblycorrupt technocratic withinformed, elite considerate andjust,reasoning reason-giving and citizens.

REASONS FORA DIVORCE

Evenon this truest, bestversion,deliberation provides solution still no the for,andpossiblyexacerbates, hardest problem democrats, therefor and

352

POLMCAL June THEORY/ 1997

foremissesby its own standards. American democratic theorists want who to discourage elitism,expandcitizenparticipation, the improve abilityof and citizensto discusspolicyquestions, evaluate and politicalcandidates, beforeall this, heightencitizenrespectfor each other,need to take one is problem primary. problem howmoreof thepeoplewhoroutinely as This speakless-who, through variousmechanisms accidents birthand or of in are fortune, leastexpressive andmostalienated conventional from American politics-might takepartand be heardandhow those who typically to dominate mightbe madeto attend theviewsof others. democratic theorists to be sure,aware theseriousContemporary of are, ness of this problem disenfranchisement. for example,whenCass of So, makesthe case thatthe bestthingaboutrepublican Sunstein is thought its commitment deliberative to he to democracy, hastens pointout what'sbad aboutit: deliberation, says,cannotneatlybe separated he fromrepublican practices exclusion women,Blacks,andthoselacking of of property (Sunstein 1988,1539).Bernard Manin that is argues deliberation worth praising becausea trulydeliberative process issuingin legitimate decisions political the of utterly requires participation "all" (1987,esp. 352, 359). Knight and Johnson the carefully emphasize importance "freeandequalaccess to of deliberative arenas" recent (1994).Fishkin's to American proposal revitalize a democracy through "deliberative opinion poll"makes equalconsideration of everyone's an preferences essential to precondition democracy (1991,30). some democratic Further, theorists only mention importance not the of formalequalization access but also advocatestructural economic of or reformsto guarantee all citizenshave the resources-time,money, that skill at arguing-required deliberation. instance, for education, For Cohen and Rogers(1983) notice that "theabsenceof material deprivation a is precondition free and unconstrained for deliberation" 157) and that (p. "material can a inequalities subvert structure freeandequalpublicdelibof erationby translating sharply into unequal capacities politicalaction" for (p. 158). They urgethe elimination gross material of inequities also and free recommend publiceducation state-financed care.Education and child ensuresthe development deliberative of and capacities, childcareon this viewguarantees women participate politics that can in after havelearned they howtodeliberate goingtoschool. by Johnson Knight systematically and have addressed theseproblems attempted specifythe (formal, instituand to not of tional)nature the remediesto inequitythatmustprecededeliberation (1996). Theseacknowledgements theprerequisites deliberation, these of to and to instilldeliberation a participatory inclusive with attempts and impulse, are far fromtrivial.Theyin factmustbe madeif deliberation to qualifyas is

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION353

democratic. theydo not, I think,fully address Yet of problems exclusion, between hardest the that becausethereis too greata disjuncture problems with must of democracy's proponents grapple andtheformality theacknowthat and theorists make. ledgments recommendations democratic of in Some criticshave noticedthe manifestation this disjuncture the theorists. talk this abstract of democratic Indeed, abstraction be absolutely may of becauseacknownecessaryfor proponents deliberative democracy, of that of ledgment thehardest problems, is, thesystematic disregard ascripand would such violate deliberative the tivelydefined groups aswomen Blacks, rather theinterests particular to than of tenetto attend theforceof argument democratic citizensas described in groups(Phillips1995, 155ff.). Indeed, in thesetheories seemto live on another planet(quiteliterally, the case of Ackerman 1980):they are devoidof race,class, and genderand all the associated Americans thesefeatures. with benefits liabilities and Abstracby characteristics-their tion fromthese ascriptive assists disregard-clearly to baseduponthem;as well,however, attempts enddiscrimination abstractheorists a wayto noticesystematic of tiondeprives of patterns exclusion. moredifficult A deeper, thanabstraction lurks.Evenif demoproblem noticetheinequities theorists associated classandraceandgender with cratic recommend incomeandeducation redistribto and,forexample, equalizing neededfor deliberation-even everyone deliberate ute theresources if can andlearnhow to give reasons-some people'sideasmaystill countmore Insidious thanothers. citizens hear to somearguments prejudices incline may this and not others.Importantly, prejudice be unrecognized those may by as citizenswhoseviewsaredisregarded well as by other citizens. of are Proponents deliberation especially to badlyequipped address this on problem. Theydepend openarguments against prejudice overcome to it, of andon thesusceptibility prejudice reason. onlydo theybelievein to Not of theexistence settings where matters nothing exceptforanidea'sintellectualforceandits communal as ideal utility, in Habermas's speechsituation (Habermas [1962] 1992;Calhoun 1992)or in Ackerman's insistence a that can be as speaker's to an superiority never invoked areason prefer idea(1980, to in 4, 11);theyalso expectprejudices be challenged deliberative settings andfor othersto "faceup"to them(Gutmann Thompson and 1996).When based prejudice unrecognized boththosewhoaresubject in disregard goes by to it andthosewhoareprejudiced, cannot prejudices possibly challenged. be and Prejudice privilegedo not emergein deliberative settingsas bad and reasons, theyarenotcountered goodarguments. aretoosneaky, by They for invisible,and pernicious thatreasonable process.So worrying about specifyingwhatcountsas a good argument, tryingto enhance or reasonof giving either via the formulation betterrules and procedures by or

354

/ POLITICAL THEORYJune1997

to and a the providing time,money, education necessary become responsible to deliberative citizen,doesnotengagesomeof themostserious challenges the possibility achieving of democratic deliberation. Somepeoplemightbe how no how ignored matter goodtheirreasons no matter skillfully are, they democratic doesn'thavean articulate them,andwhenthis happens, theory because cannot one counter pernicious a with answer, group dynamic a good isn'tanything the rightproject like and reason.Sometimes, givingreasons or is that suggesting the disregarded argue against prejudice discrimination offensivein andof itself.4

THEANTIDEMOCRATIC APPEALOF DELIBERATION

he Although is a somewhat predictable target, Joseph Schumpeter neatly exemplifiesthreeof the time-honored These chargesagainstdemocracy. whichpersistin different charges, degreesto the present day,arethatthe to massesarebound get outof control whentheyget together, theyare that and of see their incapable rational argument, thattheycannot beyond narrow selfishconcerns. invoked observations Le Bon, who, on For the first,Schumpeter the of succeeded showing in Schumpeter's reading,
therealities human of behavior when under influence agglomeration-in the of particular ina thesudden of of restraints civilized disappearance, state excitement, moral and modes of thinking feeling,the sudden and of eruption primitive infantilisms impulses, and criminal made facegruesome that us facts everybody propensities-he knew nobody but wishedto see andhe thereby dealta serious blowto thepicture man's of nature which underlies classical the doctrine democracy democratic of and about folkdore revolutions. (Schumpeter [1942]1976,257)

when set loose in public-not Lowly passions,citizens'lack of restraint so lofty or principled a desirefor autonomy, example-are as anything for the truesourcesof inspiration the greatdemocratic for revolutions. Public assembly seems,onSchumpeter's arecipe extracting thebasest for view, only of are performances whichhumans capable. In addition, to according Schumpeter, citizensaren't smart. most that For "mere theaverage often counts citizen, more rational than assertion, repeated, had of argument." Schumpeter no shortage catch-phrases conveying for his lackof esteemfortheintelligence themany. average of general The citizen of "is impatient long or complicated argument," possesses"weakrational

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION355

is processes," "not'all there.'" "People," "cannot Schumpeter announces, Since average humans likely to yield more be carried the ladder." are up and than readilyto prejudice manipulation to rational not argument, to to mentionthe invitation crudeexcess thatis riskedwhenthey assemble, that downto a lowerlevel concludes thetypicalcitizen"drops Schumpeter as the field.He argues and of mental performance soonas he enters political in as withinthe analyzes a waywhichhe wouldreadily recognize infantile He sphereof his real interests. becomesa primitive again"(Schumpeter [1942] 1976,257, 262). also that citizens couldbarely Finally, Schumpeter wasconvinced average If resembled concerns the of discerna commoninterest. politicalmatters there dailylife in thehomeor in business, mightbe somehopeforminimal of comprehension civic affairs-so localpoliticsmightbe less afflicted by of citizen. Schumpeter But theignorance theaverage allowsthat"even there we finda reduced to powerof discerning facts,a reduced preparedness act senseof responsibility." whenit comesto national And a uponthem, reduced thereis no basisforhoping citizensmightsee andinternational that affairs, anythinglike a commongood, becausethese affairs"lacka directand
unmistakablelink with .
.

. private concerns."Citizens aren't capable of

one apprehending interest any beyond thatimmediately obviously and concernsthemselves (Schumpeter [1942]1976,260, 261). It is quitecommon putSchumpeter's to aboutdemocracy complaints in perspective recallingthe contextin whichhe wrote,with its specific by historical For provocations. instance, DavidHeld,in making pointthat the was an Schumpeter hardly original thinker, remarks that
account moreparticipatory of schemes democracy Schumpeter's highlycritical of ... echoedcloselytheopinions many of Western commentators politicians thetime and at who felt "excessive" the participation mightproduce mobilization the demoswith of highlydangerous the consequences: among experiences uppennost theirminds in was nodoubt Bolshevik the revolution themassrallies and which the signaled advent Nazi of Germany. (Held1987,165)

Creditfor sensitivity the historical to lessonsof massexcess is frequently extendedto the American politicalscientistswho followedand in some measure echoedSchumpeter, as theauthors Voting(Berelson, such of Lazarfeld,andMcPhee1954)andRobert Dahl(1956). Yetthe antidemocratic sentiments Schumpeter that exemplifies both are and too old-fashioned too persistent be linkeddirectly the historyof to to twentieth viewsof themassesweresolidlyin century Europe. Schumpeter's placein SirPhilipSidney's Arcadia, bestsellingbook,after Bible,in the the

356

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

seventeenth centuryEngland(Herzog1989). Sidney sketchesa zealous of of bothatthemercy manipulatmultitude incapable anyconstant opinion, and There's hopeof a discussion no ive rulers in needof skillfulleadership. of common interests Sidney's in account democratic of assembly:
But when they began to talk of theirgriefs, neverbees made such a confused humming: the town dwellers demandingputtingdown of imposts;the countryfellows, laying out of commons: some would have the princekeep his courtin one place, some in another. All cried out to have new counselors,but when they shouldthinkof any new, they liked At length they fell to direct them as well as any other that they could remember.... contrarieties. (Sidney 1984, 383)

followedAmerican Not only predating him, views like Schumpeter's for in politicalscienceinto the sixties,appearing, instance, Almondand for The Converse's Verba's CivicCulture (1963).Similarly, Philip quest ideas the masspublic, him revisions refineand among American leading through concluded thelament "what with mentsof survey that needs instrumentation, is item repair notthe[survey] butthepopulation" (1963,176).Theviewsthat in was Schumpeter published 1942werehardly novel;neither Schumpeter theendof them. I wantto suggestthattheappeal deliberation offered to has of something an all-purpose solution eachof the problems to named Schumpeter and by this is others. to elitists democrats. and Paradoxically, solution satisfying both of of Because itsconnotations cautiousness order-because and deliberation is by definition hasty-it establishes standard invokein complaints not a to or aboutunruly excessivebehavior. Deliberation connotes also thoughtfulness. Appealsto deliberation amountto demands a certainkind of for discoursein democratic politicalsettings: reasonable, foresighted, steady, to andoriented a common, sectarian, not problem. The aristocratic antidemocratic) of these standards beento use (or has claim that the manyfail to be deliberate: is, they are too hasty,or that insufficiently thoughtful, aboutproblems of immediate especially not concernto them.Butdemocrats subscribe them:manydemocrats also to have triedto meet the aristocratic to objections democracy adopting by these as for objections standards howdemocratic discussions political should range or be restricted. So democrats up sayingthatthemanyshould involved politics end be in butthattheyshoulddeliberate aboutit. Bothdefenders enemiesof the and masseshave advanced deliberation the perfectantidote democracy. as to staunch do Democracy's supporters notcelebrate as a placeforthemany it to gather expressintemperate and views:instead, eagerto offsetcriticisms of democracy short-sighted ineptmobrule,theysuggesthow it can as and

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION357

and be mademore oriented. thefollowIn rational, slow-paced, communally betweenapparently ing sections,I explorethe resonance conservative and discussions deliberation. of democratic apparently

AND DELUBERATION THEAVOIDANCE AND OFINTEMPERANCE INEPTITUDE was Burke a vociferous advocate a moretranquil of Edmund politicsand the author some of the morecolorfulimagesof popular of excess in the Burkefoundthe FrenchNationalAssembly historyof politicalthought. in fact,he considered a sham,playing it anything deliberate; but
with thefarceof deliberation as littledecency liberty. as of Theyactlikethecomedians a a fairbefore riotous the cries audience; actamidst tumultuous of a mixedmobof they ferocious to men,andof womenlost to shame, who,according theirinsolent fancies, and mix direct, control, applaud, explode them, sometimes andtaketheir seatsamongst them,domineering themwitha strange over mixture servilepetulance proud, of and presumptuous (Burke [1790]1987,60) authority.

AlthoughBurkewas hardlya democrat's friend,he didn'tfind the best multitude without if it couldjust slow down,it might entirely redemption: notbe completely 'The multitude, the moment, foolish," outlandish. for is he said,butonly for the moment, "when deliberation" theyactwithout (as in quoted Pitkin1967,181).Unfortunately, he however, though admitted that with theywereendowed deliberative Burke considered delibthe capacities, erate senseof themultitude remote toolongincoming make safe too and to it forthem direct ownpolitics. to their Better theyavoidtheoverstimulating that of atmosphere the politicalassemblyand leave politicsto someoneless inclined rashness. to Burke of course, exemplary is, the conservative. self-styled But democrats alsosketch democratic excessin language closelyapproximates The that his. American scientist Donald political Downs,forexample, echoesBurke his in account thepolitical of extremism surrounding attempts radical by feminists to passantipornography in and legislation Minneapolis Indianapolis. Downs reportsthat "manyknowledgeable leadersexpressedstrongreservations aboutthe lack of deliberation, one-sidedness, the surreal the and sense of moralemergency prevailed" Minneapolis. describing hearings that in In the onpornography by theCityCouncil, held Downs,bothin hisownwords and in quoting others, refers the"antics" supporters theantipornography to of of their ordinance, "emotionalism," "rant rave" opposed "precise their and as to

358

THEORY/ 1997 June POLITICAL

and their"hysteria," the way the activists"applauded, thinking," booed, And hissed,andcried." in fact,Downssaysthata senseof moral emergency the are that mature andone-sidedness "precisely qualities thepolitically and to tolerant societyaspires tame" (Downs1989,66, 82-3,86-7,italicsadded). the the to Tobe clear, pointhereis notabout extent whichDonald Downs on it decries restrictions pornography. Instead, is thatbothDownsandothers condemn antipornography the whoseviewshereports activists saying that by deliberate. though And Downs theywere,in no smallmeasure, insufficiently in this (1989)makes condemnation thenameof democracy example, he (for taken on ... saysthat"theextreme positions during thenewattack pornogthe havedemeaned quality public of discourse andjeopardized raphy ... the debate" xvii), his appeals deliberation qualityof democratic to (p. clearly withBurke's conservative on resonate emphasis the needfor containment of andtheavoidance excess. distrust the self-control reasonableness the many of and of Unqualified democratic buta judiciously may seem out of placein ourrelatively age, is to Worries expressed skepticism notatall foreign modern policythinkers. between deliberation democracy, aboutthe contradiction and aboutpublic discussionsspinninginto chaos, are regarded legitimate as concernsfor The has policymanagers. taskof thesebureaucrats become,on themodern American of view,notjust themanagement publicpolicyandpublicissues of perse, butthemanagement thepublicdiscussion itself. For instance, morethana thirdof the essays in a collectioneditedby RobertReich, The Power of PublicIdeas, are explicitlydevotedto the questionof how policy makersmightdeveloppublicdebateon policy But matters. it's clearthatthisis tricky evenforthosestudents business, of like whoclearly public policy, Reich, endorse goalof democratic the involvement.A certain wariness all accompanies of Reich'srecommendations that public managers under public bring policymatters the purview. Reichwarns: will deliberation takeupinordinate andresources andit can "public time ... easilycycleoutof control" (Reich1988,154).Evenwell-intentioned public need managers to knowjusthowmessythingscanbecome. with the objection the massesareinclinedto be that Closelyaffiliated overwhelmed mobpsychology thepolitical in by is assembly theworry that rational think to theyaren't This sufficiently straight. toois anold-fashioned For in objection. example, theseventeenth Sir century, Thomas PopeBlount announced "thenumerous that rabble" were "butbrutesin theirunderbut standing.. . having nothing theiroutsides justifytheirtitlesto rationto in Thomas ality"(asquoted 1983,43-4).Buttheviewhasnotentirely faded fromthescene.Notso longago,Charles Lindblom nearly unflattering was as

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION359

to as SirThomas: "most peoplewant policymaking generally bedemocratic. Buttheyalsowantit to be intelligent" (Lindblom 1980,6). shouldbe restricted experts-to thoseparto The ideathatdeliberation with the skills for rational discourse-is an idea that ticularlyequipped that to othermodemtheories at leastformally pervades purport be demotheirtrueinterests bestbe pursued can cratic.If the massesarelacking, by at someonebetterequipped managing politicalaffairsthanthey are. The
second chapterof C. B. MacPherson'sThe Real Worldof Democracy is a

to long attempt justifythe ideathatthe "vanguard . . . maybe called state if democratic": the massesthemselves exhibitno tastefor the struggle for then an elite groupmay directthem to it, pursuing humanequality, the better thantheythemselves (MacPherson can people'strueinterests 1965, 22). to An alternative ruleby experts however, available democrats. to If is, And it may be exactly the massesare lacking,they mightbe improved. in involvement publicaffairsthatwill educatethemto the capacities for The of effectsof political citizenship. mostfamousexemplar theeducative is he deliberation Mill.Although wassuspicious of citizens enough average Government theirvotes shouldbe outto suggestin Representative that weighedby theirbetter-educated fellows,Mill still locatedsome uplifting in in for potential political discourse, instance OnLiberty. in of Averagepeoplecan be improved a number ways through their in involvement politics.Not only mighttheydevelopbasiccompetency at citizenship, they also arelikelyto becomebetter human beings,acquiring both individual and a sense of commoninvolvement. autonomy Many democrats extend hopeto allcitizens: wanteveryone this contemporary they involvedin politics,buttheyalsowanteveryone be deliberate to about it.

DELIBERATION EVERYONE FOR

Modemdemocratic theorists wantpublicdeliberation be commonin to two ways.Theyhopethatall citizenswill deliberate together, because their of in of activity participating a discussion common problems should inspire a senseof autonomy. incontrast antidemocrats, SirPhillip to And, like Sidney andJosephSchumpeter, doubttheaverage who citizen'sabilityto comprebut hendanything a private modem interest, democratic theorists believethis broader orientation be reached the massesand recommend can by wide in involvement political deliberation a course it. Public as to discussions are common modem for democratic in theorists a secondsense,then,in terms of

360

/ THEORYJune1997 POLITICAL

A or voice, of theirsubjectmatter orientation. normof findinga common some form of a communal contemporary interest,pervades resurrecting democratic theory. seems of interest identity or in Including everyone thepursuit a common and the on it's democratic: a goalfounded expanded participation, it contains worthwhile-asenseof empowerment a stake and that aspiration something Yet in the community-willcomeoutof thisparticipation. thisdemocratic Both of antidemocratic certain aimcarries implications. thepursuit a comfor monvoiceandthevehicle-deliberation everyone-usedin thatpursuit to democratic aims.There are antagonistic important maybe fundamentally to can limitstotheextent which which together, everyone deliberate probably of voice itselfis, somewhat I will discusslater.But the pursuit a common an modern democratic theorists did paradoxically, exclusiveaim.Although because thought masses the notdecideto focuson a communal identity they narrow selfishconcerns, the and in to their needed special urging see beyond indictments mass of with conservative end this focus ends up resonating troubling ways. politicsin potentially defines she the WhenJaneMansbridge deliberation, alsoreveals contemporary democratic inclination toward the pursuit of commonality. that Mansbridge, however,is carefulto allow for a formof deliberation of deliberation "shape characthe the advocates articulation difference: may of terof thosewhoengagein it, in thedirection morehabitually recognizing If of makeit unlikelythatsome conflictsof interest." patterns oppression in will these from they groups succeed articulating differences, needtoretreat discussion deliberate and to the moregeneral amongthemselves, discover is their true interests.Ultimately, however,commonality the goal: "the 'we' than of presence others encourages rather 'I'thinking....whena society and individual self-interest encourage altruism, deliberaneedstodiscourage 1991,7-8). tionin publicwill oftenservethatend"(Mansbridge theoristsshareMansbridge's Othercontemporary that recognition the deliberation needsto preserve some spacefor acknowprojectof mutual Hanna for pointsoutthat Pitkin, instance, ledgingconflictsanddifferences. one of the aimsof deliberation-requires distributive justice-presumably individual selvesin thecommunity (Pitkin1981). acknowledging Pitkinand Shumer only acknowledge possibility conflictin not the of discussions consider but conflictintegral them:"conflictdemocratic to and handled democratic in ways,withopenness persuasion-iswhatmakes democracy work, what makes for the mutualrevisionof opinionsand and interest" (Pitkinand Shumer1982,47; see also Gutmann Thompson of at here,an expectation arrival some 1996).Yetclearlythere'sa priority are or interests to be revised, in kindof consensus. modified, shifted Special

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION361

In the nameof discovering common. addition, something common not life but to only emergesin deliberation is expected assistit. Charles Larmore, along with JohnRawls,suggeststhatdisagreements be resolvedor may bypassedwhen citizenscan referto the "beliefsthey still share"or to "common to ground" (Larmore 1996,referring Rawls1971). Pitkinand Shumer, and Mansbridge, Larmore, represent attempts by democratic theorists acknowledge to contemporary conflictanddifference to and withina broader project uncover, relyupon,a communal orientation. These approaches, however,carrya risk thatparticular and perspectives in will of interests be effaced, or especially theinterests minorities oppressed a Neither whenor if particular groups. perspective suggests wayto identify be honored. Neither for interests should publicly a suggests standard deciding as to whenthecommunity a wholemustattend veryparticular perspectives, has or whether suchattention anyplacein deliberation. assemblies Yet surelythereare occasionswhendemocratic shoulddo nothinglike pursuethe commongood but insteadshouldjust listen and The respondto particular complaints. testimonyof Japanese Americans World WarII beforeCongress relocated during was, for example,such a The with moment. firstmajor of problem thedemocratic pursuit a communal deliberation thisriskof discrediting is orientation through interests. particular to Oneof the morepromising abouthonoring approaches thinking parcomesfromacknowledging needfordemocrats listenas well the to ticularity as to talk in theirdeliberations. Barber announces need in this Benjamin
StrongDemocracy:
of Theparticipatory that process self-legislation characterizes democracy strong attempts to balance the art "I adversary politics nourishing mutualistic of listening. willlisten" by means thestrong to democrat that willscanmyadversary's not I for position weaknessess and nor potential trade-offs, even(asa minimalist think) Iwilltolerantly that might permit himto say whatever chooses.Itmeans, he "I rather, will putmyselfin his place,I will I will to us tryto understand, strain hearwhatmakes alike,I will listenfora common of rhetoric evocative a common or purpose a common good.(Barber 1984,175)

Yetwhatis acknowledged thelistener onlywhatcanbe incorporated, is by whatis identifiably similar. Whilewhatis different, distinctive, unique, or uncommon be articulated,is not,onthemodelof listening it may detailed by to attended oracknowledged. Barber, Preferred attention what'scommon to increases risksof outright the denial theperspectives minorities. these of of If are or perspectives unsettling, of discomfiting, if members the dominant in grouphavean interest ignoring them,thentheriskscontained seeking in a common voiceincrease. example, For White feminists havetended think to in termsof a genericcategory woman, approach of an whichmayusefully

362

THEORYJune1997 / POLITICAL

someformof solidarity alsodenies but White women's encourage complicity with racism.This pointhas emerged that clearlyin the criticisms Black of in have tendencies White feminist feminists made theuniversalizing theory andpolitics(Smith1982;hooks1981;Joseph Lewis 1981;Dill 1983; and Spelman 1988;Collins1990). of and Giventhedifficulties acknowledging crediting interests particular in themidstof a broad of it pursuit commonality,is notsurprising findthat to honorof a higher valuethanoneselfcan also workto discredit demanding around particular the socialmovements interests oppressed of forged groups. used by AlbertMartin, husband The language a abandoned his wife's in and pursuitof her own individuality the author One Man, Hurt is an of extreme Martin of of example: complains "theenshrinement individuality, of of unionandsocialcompromise" thefreedom self, attheexpense marital in (quoted Klatch1987,128). When someonelike Martincalls for social compromise, readily we with to this a of identify appeal anattempt resurrectstate affairs characterized not onlyby unitybutalsoby dominance inequality. suchanappeal and Yet is not readilydistinguishable ostensibly from moremoderate perspectives Bellahet al. 1985).In settings (compare wheretherearegrossinequities in powerandstatus,callingfor compromise be perilously may close to supthe pressing challenging of perspectives marginalized groups. Suchsuppresis sion,whenit occurs, notdemocratic. avoiding requires ability And it an to noticewhichindividuals have regularly morepowerthanothers, whose and dominate. The appealto democratic perspectives regularly deliberation at a doesn't, leastby itself,provide wayto takenoticeof andrespond such to imbalances. to in Learning deliberate America mightbe inseparable indoctrinafrom tion in familiar routines hierarchy deference, of and becausethe settings whereAmericans deliberate aren'tisolatedfrom statusinequalities. The extentto whichthese concernsare troubling be clearerfollowinga will reviewof some of the apparent aboutdeliberation facts collectedin social
scientific studies of juries.

THEPOSSIBILITIES FOR DELIBERATION IN THE UNITEDSTATES

Thequestion whether of democrats achieve can democratic through goals deliberation be addressed looking howdeliberation at may by actually seems in toproceed settings where American citizens toeachother, to face. talk face

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION363

and of Statusinequalities regular patterns socialoppression mightintrude whenAmericans deliberate to sufficiently makedemocratic goals,suchas and remoteandunlikely. on enhancing community autonomy, Depending theseproblems theymaypersisteven wheneveryone how pernicious are, and for knowshow to deliberate has the time,money,andinformation it. in broad discussions require Promoting participation democratic more may the to or the thanguaranteeing material prerequisites deliberation suggesting voice. of pursuit a common it If American politicsis ever considered reallydemocratic, is in the of what'sbest about institution the jury:juries are supposedto capture When individual citizens in American democracy. participate theadministraless Citizen tionof justice,lawseemsless remote, magisterial. participation of as buttressed helpssecurethe reputation legalinstitutions at leastpartly And alsoseemabulwark individual of bypopular sovereignty. juries liberties, to The sincejurorsareinclined fendfor thosewho standaccused. massive and verdicts empirical studyof American juriesby Kalven Zeiselcompared trials thedeterminations to delivered juriesincriminal by judgeswouldhave without of rendered the casesbeenheard had juries.Almostfour-fifths the but weremore time, judgesand juriesagreed, whentheydiffered, jurors likely thanjudges to find in favorof the defendant (Kalvenand Zeisel 1966). in citizensareinvolved theadministrationjustice,albeit of because Further, the to through lens of a particular the case, they areencouraged consider beforethemfroma broader, socialperspective to leaveaside, and questions their at leasttemporarily, immediate personal and concerns. on Participation a juryseemsto involveexactlythe skillsandcapacities thatdemocrats Americans in hope the might practice other settings: deliberativejuryis supposed be composed considerate, to and exactlynotan angry mob. In the jury,citizenscall on theirrational facultiesand considera or not common, at leastimpersonal, personal, problem. Juries appear be to like something schoolsfor democrats, Tocqueville as suggested theywere. But of courseTocqueville particular had lessonsin mind,not necessarily thoseadmired contemporary by theorists. Tocqueville considered Americans in need of reminders aboutstatusanddeference, whichhe thought were ideally communicated throughthe mechanismof the civil jury. Unlike criminaltrials, where Tocquevilleanticipatedmodernsocial science by suspectingthatjurorswould sympathizewith defendants, civil trials on his view could encourage juries to look to judges for and guidance. And participation juries was furtherlaudexpertise on able, in Tocqueville's eachjuror"comesintodailycontact eyes, because withthebest-educated most-enlightened and members theupper of classes."

364

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

Tocqueville thoughtlawyerscountedas a "classapart" fromthe people, of resembling "Egyptian priests, being,as theywere,theonlyinterpreter[s] an occultscience" (Tocqueville 1969,275, 267). found much recommend thehumbling to in Although Tocqueville aspects a he of thecourtroom, assumed basically in homogenous inferior class jury andstatus judgesandlawyers. didn't to He the that explore possibility citizens Yet socialscientific evidencesugmightdeferto eachother. contemporary in and gests thatexactlythathappens, ways thatareentirelyunsurprising predictable given the inequalities familiarin the broader society.When in assemble juries, Americans the and theydo notleavebehind status, power, that world. privileges theyholdin theoutside of Mostjurydeliberations a beginwiththe selection groupleader, foreFar is person. moreoftenthannot,theperson selected a Whitemalewitha and college degree.Postgraduate work,a high-status occupation, previous the further enhance chancesof beingselected. Women juryexperience are chosento head than on juriesmuchless frequently their representation juries suggeststheyshouldbe (HansandVidmar 1986). and do selection jury Gender, racial, economic privilege notdetermine as leaderin a director immediate sense,however. Instead, they increase the of that likelihood behavior leadsto selectionas headof thejury.Speaking of firstandsitting thehead thetable at increase probability beingchosen the of and men as foreperson, high-status engagein thesebehaviors moreoften of (HansandVidmar was 1986).An account the waythatthejuryforeman
selected in the trial of John De Loreancapturesthese dynamics:"The first

was itemof business to selecta groupleader. Vern a Lahr, former highway the mentioned issue firstandstoodcapablyat the blackboard patrolman, Not he askingfor nominations. surprisingly, waschosenforthejob"(Hans andVidmar, 1986,16). Another enhancer thechance be selected foreperson of important to as is a claimof somekindof prior not experience, though necessarily experience with jury service.In a studyof mockjuries,PhoebeEllsworth her and
colleagues found that, though almost two-thirdsof the jurors studied were

women,men were chosento headjuries nearly90 percentof the time.
Ellsworthreportsthat
For ten of the eighteenjuries, the process of foremanselection can be summedup by the phrase "choose a man who says he has experience.". . . Since we knew which of our subjects had actuallyserved on realjuries, we were able to find out whetherthe people chosen as foremanwere actuallymore likely to have had priorjury experiencethat the otherjurors.They were not more experienced:39 percentof the foremenhad served on

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION365 with of an difference. juries, compared 36 percent theother as jurors, insignificant Thus, is not a foreman someonewho claimsexperience, necessarily soneone who has it. (Ellsworth 1989,213)

of the Selection theforeperson encapsulates patterns repeated through course Studies conducted thelastfourdecades over of thejury'sdeliberations. have reinforced basicfindingthatmentalkmorein juries; the consistently jury morelikelyto be men,arealso inclined participate to leaders, already more in Even is thanother members deliberation. whentheforeman excluded jury of talksmostduring fromthecalculations whogenerally men deliberations, the stilldominate discussion significant amounts and by (Hans Vidmar 1986; and Marsden 1987;Hastie, Penrod, Pennington 1983). than Thesimple that talkmore women fact men deliberations injury might inclinedto hold strictlyto a standard equal give pause to democrats of If in that participation groupdiscussions. it's demonstrable some kindsof morethanothers deliberative in as peopleroutinely speak settings, it is, then isn't standard fallen.Butdemohas participation equal,andonedemocratic cratsneedn't the of give up so easily.Onemightrelinquish standard strictly and that equalparticipation sayinstead as longas mostorall viewsavailable to the grouparesomehow and it who expressed considered, doesn'tmatter somepeopletalkmorethanothers. sayswhator whether Yetstudiesof juriessuggestthatwhether ideais expressed thefirst an in whether is apprehended the group,andwhether prevailsin it place, by it all on the deliberations, depend whether ideahas a talkative promoter. For the to to instance, mere the propensity talka lotappears increase chances that onewill beviewedaspresenting compelling arguments. Studies ofjuriesand othersmallgroups indicate individuals speak mostarelikelyto that who the be viewedas most persuasive othergroupmembers thatit is the by and of not that quantity remarks, theirquality, seemsto drivetheseperceptions each (Marsden 1987).Inprinciple, juror's perspective should givenequal be weightin groupdeliberations, simplyincreasing volumeof one's but the seemsto increase chances one'sopinions prevail. the that commentary will Studiesof the behavior interracial of groupsin American classrooms the that support general fromstudies finding emerges ofjuries,thatmembers of the dominant groupin society also tend to dominate small groups in on working a common Dominance shownin thesestudies to is problem. not be attributable any greater to skill on the partof the dominant group.One worktogether a collective earlystudyfoundthatwheninterracial groups on are task,Whitestudents moreactiveandinfluential.

366

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL Katz,Benjaminand Goldstonfoundthatblack college studentsdisplayedmarkedsocial to in inhibitionandsubordination white partners a cooperativeproblem-solving situation, even when subjects were matchedon intelligence and made to display equal ability at thanblacks;bothblacks and whites talked the task ... Whites initiatedmore interaction more to whites dtanto blacks. (Cohen 1982, 210-1).

these studies controlledfor factors such as age, height, socioImportantly, economic status, and attitudes toward school. Even when students were matchedon these demographicfactorsas well as on ability at the problemsolving task pursued by the group, high-status members were routinely to treatedas if theircontribution the groupproblemwere better.They spoke more duringgroup discussions, and they were given more opportunitiesto make suggestions;in postmeetingquestionnaires, groupmembersperceived the high-statusparticipants having betterideas and as having done more as to guide the group. These results hold whetherthe racial comparisonsare between Anglo and Mexican Americanstudents,black and white students, Native Americans and whites, or Israelis or Europeanand Middle-Eastern backgroundstudents(Cohen 1982). If dominancein groupdiscussionsis not attributable the superiorskills to at reasoning,argument,or deliberationof the dominantgroup,then it is not the likely thatdistributing skills for deliberationmore widely will solve the problems of unequal participationor influence. Instead, improving democratic discussion seems to require interventionsin the structureof group deliberations. Jury studies provide fodder not only for democraticworries about the course of group deliberationsin the United States but also for suggestions abouthow discussions might be structured make problemsof dominance to andhierarchyless pressing.For instance,it appearsthatsome styles of group discussion are more likely to elicit the views of all groupmembersthan are others. Social psychologists distinguish between "evidence-driven"and "verdict-driven" deliberationstyles in juries. Verdict-driven juries decide to take a vote early on to see whereeveryonestands.They tendto arriveat their final determinations relativelyquickly,withthe verdictalmostalwaysreflecting the positionof the majorityin the initialvote. By contrast, juries engaging in evidence-driven deliberations tendto discuss the meritsof certainperspectives on the evidence withouttaking an initial vote or otherwiseassociating certainjurorswith certainperspectives. When jury deliberationsare focused more on eliciting a range of views insteadof on the commonproblemof arrivingat a verdict,they appearlikely to provokebotha moreconsiderate discussionandone thatleavesjurorsmore satisfied with their participation: jurors on evidence-drivenjuries report thinking they have done a good job more frequently than do jurors on

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION367

verdict-driven (Hans Vidmar and juries if 1986;Brown1986).Further, ajury decidesto defervotinguntildiscussing evidence, canapparently the it hold off themechanisms allowsomeindividuals dominate that to discussions:
Inanideally andrational fair deliberation all of will process, thearguments bothfactions be weighedbeforecomingto a decision,whichmay be required be explicitly to unanimous. majority, know,hassomepower influence perceptual The we to the judgments theminority theforceof conformity, of by whichhasnothing do withrational to and that in argument, it is alsoknown smallminorities juriessometimes agreeto "go with verdict along" a unanimous that although havenotbeenpersuaded it is correct. they (Brown 1986,286)

Verdict-driven deliberations reduce chances a broad the of consideration of all views on theevidence, reduce likelihood a rational the of discussion, andincrease pressures conformity. verdict-driven the to But deliberations are morein keeping witha malestyleof discourse aremorelikelyto occur and whenmenhead juries.Somesocial-scientific studies that suggest women are morelikelythanmento encourage evidence-driven of deliberation. an style to Women appear accommodate different pointsof viewbetter mendo. than
Instudies all-female of the active groups, more tried speakers todraw themore out silent is which a keycharacteristicevidence-driven Incontrast, all-male members, of in juries. the groups, moreactivemembers eventually ignored less activemembers, the whichis a key characteristic verdict-driven of juries.Themendisplayed with competitiveness othermen,whereas womenexpressed the with cooperation otherwomen.In mixed groups, however, women the consistently became more If silent. women encouraged are to speak more menarereminded listenmore, and to women be abletobring jury may to their deliberations tendency engagein evidence-driven to discussion. (Marsden 1987, 603-4;see alsoKanter 1979)

If partof whatdeliberation meansis bringing moreparticipants more and into perspectives common discussions to ensure different and that viewsare considered it seriously, is notlikelyto be increased by distributing just the skillsfor deliberation morewidely.Thatis, ensuring participation delibin and eration, guaranteeingdiscussion calls on all perspectives, not a that is of just a matter teaching to everyone argue. meetthe concern equal To of democrats shouldexplicitlyattendto issues of groupdyparticipation, namicsandtryto developwaysto undercut dominance higher-status the of individuals. Democratic deliberation mightalso be endorsed a surercoursethan as decisionmaking an elite groupto a fairorjust decisionaboutissuesof by common interest. thiscaseagain,however, In studiesof juriessuggestthat who participates in common most deliberations somebearing what has on

368

/June1997 THEORY POLITICAL

theoutcome thosediscussions be,andonwhether of will thosedecisions will be viewedas fairorjustby all members thecommunity. of Somestudiesof jurieshaveexamined question whether juryis the of the at to competent arrive a fairorjust verdict. in Competency manyof these has studies beenassessed examining correspondence the between verdicts by to rendered judgesas compared juries.Since,as a general by matter, judges and juries tend overwhelmingly arriveat the same verdicts,by this to look standard, deliberations fair or rightin termsof theiroutcome, jury
despite the apparently troublingdynamicsof deliberations (HansandVidmar 1986; Hastie, Penrod,and Pennington1983). Otherjury studies, however,suggest thatthe dynamicsof deliberationwho dominates, whose perspective is suppressed-might be quite consequential for the fairness or justice of the outcome of deliberations.Phoebe Ellsworth and her colleagues found, in studies of "death-qualified" juries (juriescomposedof individualswilling to impose the deathpenaltyin capital crimes), thatthesejuries aremorelikely to convict thanotherjuries:they are biased against the defendant (Cowan, Thompson, and Ellsworth 1984; FitzgeraldandEllsworth1984). Ajury composedof death-qualified jurorsis also unrepresentative the broader of population.It is more likely to be made up of White men who are Christians,Republicans,and wealthy, and less likely to be composed of women, Blacks, poor people, Democrats, Jews,

or atheists, agnostics.
A suppositionwe might draw,puttingtogetherthe findings aboutdeathqualifiedjuries andwhatwe know aboutthe dynamicsof deliberation, that, is

to theextentthathigher-status individuals dominate discussions, jury juries defendants. may veertoward Further convicting evidencein this direction fromstudies theresponses jurors testimony experts hasemerged of of to by on domesticviolence,in trialsof womenwho haveclaimed havekilled to in theirbatterers self-defense. foundthatmalejurors ReginaSchuller were "more and likelyto favorguiltyverdicts to offerunfavorable interpretations of the defendant's of mindandof herabilityto leavethe situation state in whichshe foundherself'(Vidmar Schuller and 1989,154).Attitudes about crimeandaboutwhodeserves be convicted notrandomly to are distributed acrossthepopulation jurors. of Instead, conviction-proneness to appears be in concentrated individuals possesscharacteristics who similar the charto acteristics those who tendto dominate of discussions. dominance The of individuals discussions shiftnotonly thestylebutthe in higher-status may outcome thesediscussions. of Themostimportant democratic fordeliberation thatdeliberation, hope is in juriesor elsewhere, enhances citizenship inspiring by autonomy a and senseof community; other in it words, produces conditions mutual of respect.

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION369

of socialhierarchies patterns oppression hamper goal, and this Yetagain, may so afflictingdeliberation sufficiently thatparticipation instillsa sense of than or rather either alienation autonomy community. accountsby AfricanAmerican Firsthand jurorsin the trialof Robert a Chambers (who,beforethejuryhadreached finalverdict, pleaded guilty in of to first-degree the manslaughter thedeath DawnLevin)reinforce view in thatjurorswho areprivileged termsof race,economicbackground, or fromthose who are not, gendertend to haveperspectives quitedifferent that or belyingtheexpectation deliberation might inspire, helprecall,a sense of community. distance The between jurors' perspectives be sufficient may so thatless privileged feelthattheir viewsarediscounted,possibility a jurors of withthepromotion a senseof autonomy. clearlynotin keeping timein the Chambers Robert Nickeywas servingon a juryfor thethird of trial.He testifiedin the 1988 publichearings the New YorkJudicial Commission Minorities his beliefthathis views weresystematically on to unheeded Whitejurors. by Nickeyreported askingthe other jurorsif they Chambers murder intentif he of wouldhaveanydifficulty with convicting met wereBlack,andhavinghis inquiry withsilence.He alsoexpressed his with disillusionment the legal system:"I alwaysfelt andwas taughtthat But justicewasblindto race,color,orcreed. thatis notso hereinNewYork" the to in (as quotedin Davis 1989, 1569).Indeed, reactions the verdict the SimiValleytrialof thepoliceofficers of accused beating Rodney King,and trial to the criminal of 0. J. Simpson, reveala profound of distrust the idea thatAmericans to mightresolvetheirdisagreements resorting a common by ground. Because dominance to of appears be a function status theattributions and of superiority accompany distributing that skillsandresources delibit, for eration unlikelyto ensuremoreegalitarian democratic is and discussions. moreobviously, neither urging discovery a common is the Perhaps of voice the of likelyto address problems inequality group in deliberations. goal The of democratic discussion should be teaching not to everyone deliberate, but tryingto figureout a way to makesurethateveryoneparticipates is and and in effectively represented taken seriously discussions.

AN ALTERNATIVE DELIBERATION? TO

I shouldsay thatI amnotentirely deliberation. I amagainst But against it it fornow:I think is premature a standard American as for democrats, who areconfronted moreimmediate with And the problems. I think standard has

370

THEORY/ June 1997 POLITICAL

pernicious to from consequences, theextentthatit is distracting morebasic of and and that problems inclusion mutual recognition, to theextent it favors and that a formof expression discourse makesit likelythatthe talkof an of identifiable privileged and sector theAmerican will public dominate public dialogue. identification deliberation the pursuitof a of Modemdemocrats' with from the egalitarian concernto enhance commonvoice steals attention modemdemocratic theorists wantto effectiveparticipation. also Although of honorthe concernto bringthe perspectives the disenfranchised into theirappeal deliberation to undercuts concern. this publicdiscussions, The has is to attached. Deliberation a request a for invitation deliberate strings and kindof talk:rational, to certain contained, oriented a shared problem. have of Whereantidemocrats usedthestandards expertise, and moderation, as communal orientation a way to excludeaverage citizensfrompolitical democrats to adopt seem thesestandards guides as modern decision-making, for whatdemocratic connotapoliticsshouldbe like.Andtheexclusionary tionsof thesestandards persist. that discussion should rational, be Arguing democratic moderate, not and selfishimplicitly excludes talkthatis impassioned, public and extreme, the interests. is onesetof indictments thedemocratic This of product particular of The to fromsocialscientific appeal deliberation. evidence studiesof delibin eration juriesandclassrooms The criticism. modelof suggestsa further deliberation account the waysthatstatus of simplydoes nottakesufficient and hierarchy of shapepatterns talkingand listeningto ensurethat all are that in perspectives considered, participation a publicdiscussion instills a sense of autonomy, thatthe pursuit a commoninterest and of does not coincidewiththepromotion theviewsof thedominant. of An alternative deliberation a modelfor democratic to as politicshas to begin by tryingto rule out the problems the critique deliberation that of reveals.Thatis, thealternative should avoidstated implicit or requirements thattalkbe onlyrational moderate, thattheonlyperspectives and or worth to attending areperspectives illuminate is common. that what Instead focusingso exclusively deliberation, of on American democrats couldcullanalternative modelfrom their political history. ideaof giving The of testimony, tellingone'sparticular to a broader has story group, important in precedents American in politics, particularlyAfrican American politics and churches (Smithernan 1977).Suggesting testimony a potentially as better standard democratic for discussionsthandeliberation does not rule out

Sanders/ AGAINST DELIBERATION 371

deliberation notruleouttestimony. does Both deliberation, as suggesting just democratic But mayhavesomeplacein a broad state process. thecurrent of American afflicted patterns politicsis sufficiently exclusive,sufficiently by so of dominance, thatevenhanded are Public groupdeliberations unlikely. in the discussions theUnitedStatesseemlikelyto replicate hierarchies that in that areidentifiable domains aren't For the explicitly political. example, qualityof life in the UnitedStatesis vastlydifferent BlackAmericans for thesedifferences measured terms income, are thanforWhites,whether in of or Research employment, Council health, education (National 1989).Butthe is even epistemological problem perhaps moredaunting: WhitesandBlacks worlds. There fewpolicyorpolitical are see different issuesonwhich Whites and Blacksare willingto expresseven remotelysimilarviews to survey all on of interviewers: virtually matters American Blacksand public opinion, Whitesaredividedby a wide (andof coursestatistically significant) gulf and about (Kinder Sanders racial gender and 1992).Evidence differences in while not definitiveby itself, supports sketchof jury deliberations, the American societyas a societycharacterized important divisions between by whether measured terms power, in of groups of status, quality life,orpolitical views.If we allowthatsomeAmericans morealienated others, are than that some arerelatively then disenfranchised, the modelof democratic politics to subscribed by democratic theorists shouldtryto remedy, reinforce, not theseproblems. Testimony mightbe a modelthatallowsfor the expression different of rather seekingwhat'scommon. contrast than perspectives The between the of and aim pursuit commonality, thesimpler to include represent fuller and a rangeof critical voices,is at thecoreof thedifference between deliberation For andtestimony. example, whereCohenandRogers complain thelack of of a "common voice"(1983, 17) bell hooksarticulates needforcritical the
voices:
Yearningis the word thatbest describesa common psychological state sharedby many of us, cuttingacross boundariesof race, class, gender,and sexual practice.Specifically, in relationto the post-modernist deconstruction "master" of narratives, yearningthat the wells in the heartsand mindsof those whom such narratives have silenced is the longing for criticalvoice.... [Rapmusic] began as a form of "testimony" the underclass.It for has enabledunderclassblackyouthto develop a criticalvoice, as a groupof young black men told me, a "commonliteracy." Rap projectsa criticalvoice, explaining,demanding, urging.(hooks 1990, 27)

372

THEORY/June 1997 POLITICAL

not is aboutgivingtestimony tellingone'sown story, Whatis fundamental to of hooksrefers thedevelopment a dialogue. Although seekingcommunal excluded to that this "common literacy," voiceis common a group is usually to and from the discourseof the dominant, the voice thatcontributes a is of, to, "common literacy" posedby hooksin opposition andas a criticism in of There'sno assumption testimony findinga discourse. this dominant to of of oriented theresolution a common aim,no expectation a discussion for the is egalitarian: standard Testimony alsoradically community problem. should is of whether view is worthy publicattention simplythateveryone a Whatmightrecommend testimony havea voice, a chanceto tell herstory. more into is perspectives democratic right nowtodemocrats theneedtobring and discussions to figureouta waynotto closeoff theviewsof anybecause the of not Unlikedeliberation, standard testithey aredifferent, common. or does not excludepositionsif they are voiced in an immoderate mony the consideration ladenway.Testimony encourages democratic emotionally rootedin common of not of the worthiness perspectives obviously ground voicedina calmly rational Inother testimony andnotnecessarily way. words, of collective consideration novel,if of couldopenthepossibility reasonable, disquieting, perspectives. of in of has Stuart Mill, Testimony something a precursor thethought John construed a proponent democratic of a writer moreregularly as deliberation. to in British century societythatMilltried reform his writing Thenineteenth American by society,afflicted divisionsandexcluwas,like contemporary a sions. WhenMill spokeaboutthe benefitsof including disenfranchised he aim group,women,in publicdiscussions, spokeaboutthe primary of not a an perspective, discovenrngcommonvoice. In 7he hearing excluded Mill can definitive be knownof Subjection Women, wrotethatnothing of themselves havegivenbutlittletestimony." They women,since "women to (Mill 1975, had not beenallowedto "tellanything the generalpublic"
454, 456).

that suggests that bell Nothing Millsaidin 1869,orthat hookssaystoday, everbe about citizens all thatdemocratic is tellingtheirown politicsshould to But stories,in theirown ways,to eachother. bothMill andhooksattend of and in immediate pressing and problems exclusion difference a waythat theorists avoid.Whenthe perspectives somecitizensare of contemporary in politics systematically suppressed public discourse,then democratic of shouldaim simply and first to ensurethe expression these excluded of Instead aimingfor a common might discussion, democrats perspectives.

SandersAGAINST / DELIBERATION373

that adopta morefundamental to tryto ensure thosewho areusually goal: learnto speakwhether left out of publicdiscussions theirperspectives are learnto heartheperspeccommonor not,andthosewho usuallydominate tivesof others.

NOTES
1. Thefirstdraft "Against of Deliberation" presented theMidwest was at Political Science in Annual Association Meeting April1991.SincethenI havepresented formally other it to it and groups, discussed withmany, distributed oneversion itin many people, have, upon request, Thiswidecirculation produced or another stillothers. to has innumerable valuable comments andreactions, toomuch and to goodadvice incorporate Whilefewof thesereaders be here. will to ableto locateheremyresponses their I specific suggestions,stillwantto acknowledge them, who alongwithothers didnotreadtheessaybutresponded myrequests adviceabout to for it. Forthishelp,I amgrateful Elizabeth to Robert Michael Anderson, Calvert, Phoebe Dawson, Don Ellsworth, Elster, Herzog, Jon Jim Jack Stephen Holmes, Johnson, Knight, Bernard Manin, Michael Neblo,RickPildes,StevePincus, Frank Sposito, Jackie Laura Stevens, Cass Stoker, Joan and others neglected thislist. I've Sunstein, Tronto, many in 2. Thisis nottodisregard such attempts, asthosemade Rawls by (1993)andLarmore (1996) to articulate conditions reasonable the that citizens in might agree to upon order develop morally justifiable solutions theirdisagreements. to Instead, generalization my refersto thedearth of attempts consider to whether citizens likely actreasonably, reason considered are ordinary to as is morl by contemporary philosophers democratic and theorists. on 3. Though someformsof pluralism, rational decision isn't making whatthespecialists In dealsinstead. the mostclassicstatement, do, it is cutting Bentleydiscusses pluralism a as that clashof interests is reconciled skillsfarremoved reason-giving via from (1908); a recent for see variant, Becker(1983).Sunstein (1988)castsdeliberation part)as the antithesis (in of See interest-group pluralism. alsoMansbridge (1992). 4. InFrederick 1852 of Douglass's Fourth JulyOration, objected theideathat would he to he be expected argue to against slavery (Foner 1950).

REFERENCES
Bruce.1980.Social justice in the liberal state. New Haven, YaleUniversity Ackerman, CT:
Press.

Almond, and Verba. Gabriel, Sidney 1963. Thecivic culture:Political attitudesand democracy infive nations. Princeton, Princeton NJ: University Press. 1984.Strong democracy: Participatorypolitics for a new age. Berkeley: Barber, Benjamin. of Press. University California

374

/ POLITICAL THEORYJune1997

for influence. Becker, Gary.1983.A theoryof competition amongpressure groups political Journal Economics Quarterly of 98(3):371-400. WiliamM. Sullivan, Swindler, StevenM. lipton. Ann Richard and Bellah,Robert, Madsen, and in 1985. Habitsof the heart:Individualism commitment American Berkeley: life. Press. of University California F. of Press. Artiur 1908.The Bendey, processof government. Chicago: University Chicago and 1954.Voting. of Press. Berelson, P.Lazarfeld, W.McPhee. B., Chicago: University Chicago 1986.Social The edition. NewYork: Press. Free Brown, Roger. psychology: second on in 1987. Edited J.G.A. Pocock. Edmund. Burke, Reflections theRevolution France. by [17901 Hackett. Reprint, Indianapolis: and ed. MA: Calhoun, Craig, 1992.Habermas thepublic sphere. Cambridge, MITPress. statesandinterracial in interaction schoolsettings. Annual Cohen,E. G. 1982.Expectation 8:209-35. Review Sociology of New and 1983.Ondemocracy. York: Books. Cohen, Joshua, JoelRogers. Penguin Hill. Feminist Boston: Patricia 1990.Black Unwin Collins, Thought. Hyman. and Continuation a dialogue. The of In Converse, Philip.[1963]1969.Attitudes non-attitudes: edited Edward Tufte. R. quantitative analysis socialproblems, MA: of by Reprint, Reading, Addison-Wesley. and C. 1984.Theeffectsof death Cowan, L.,W.C.Thompson, P.C.Ellsworth. on qualification to and of Law juror's predispositionconvict onthequality deliberation. andHuman Behavior 8:53-79. to 1956.Apreface democratic of Press. Dahl,Robert. theory. Chicago: University Chicago Yale Davis,PeggyC. 1989.Lawas microaggression. LawJournal 98:1559-77. Thornton. 1983.Race,class,andgender: for Dill,Bonnie sisterhood. Prospects anall-inclusive Feminist Studies 9:131-50. 1989.Thenewpolitics pornography. of Press. Downs,Donald. of Chicago: University Chicago Phoebe. 1989.Aretwelveheads better one?LawandContemporary than Ellsworth, Problems 52(4):205-24. James 1991.Democracy Deliberation. Haven: University and S. New Fsshkin, Yale Press. 1984.Dueprocess crime Fitzgerald, andP.C. Ellsworth. R., vs. control: Death qualification and Law Behavior juryattitudes. andHuman 8:31-51. of Foner, PhilipS. 1950.Thelife andwritings Frederick Douglass. S. NewYork: International Publishers. 1996.Democracy disagreement. Gutmann, Amy,andDennis and Thompson. Cambridge, MA: Press. Harvard, Belknap Habermas, Jurgen. [1962]1992.Thestructural transfonration thepublicsphere. of Reprint, MA: Cambridge, MITPress. Hans,Valerie andNeilJ.Vidmar. P., 1986.Judging jury.NewYork: the Plenum. and Hastie,Reid,S. Penrod, N. Pennington. 1983.Insidethejury.Cambridge, Harvard MA: Press. University Held,David.1987.Models democracy. of Stanford, Stanford CA: University Press. Don.1989.Happy slaves.Chicago: Herzog, University Chicago of Press. I hooks,bell. 1981.Ain't a woman: Black women Boston: South Press. End andfeminism. . 1990.Yearning: gender cultural and Race, politics. Boston: South Press. End Johnson, James,and JackKnight.1996. Whatsort of politicalequalitydoes democratic deliberation require? Unpublished manuscript.

DELIBERATION375 SandersAGAINST /
Joseph,Gloria,andJill Lewis. 1981. Common differences:Conflictsin Blackand Whitefeminist

Boston: End South Press. perspectives. Brown. American Boston: Littde, jury. Kalven andH. Zeisel.1966.The H., New BasicBooks. Moss.1979.Menandwomen thecorporation. York: of Kanter, Rosabeth
Kinder,Donald R., and LynnM. Sanders.1996. Dividedby color: Racialpolitics and American

Press. of University Chicago democracy. Chicago: Press. 1987.Women thenewright. Rebecca. Philadelphia: Temple University of Klatch, of 1994.Aggregation deliberation: thepossibility and On Knight, Jack,andJamesJohnson. 22:277-96. Political Theory democratic legitimacy. New Press. 1996.Themorals modernity. York: Cambridge University Charles. of Larmore, 1980.Thepolicymaking Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Charles. process,2d ed. Englewood Lindblom, Hall. New Oxford Press. University C. of MacPherson, B. 1965.Therealworld democracy. York: and deliberation. Political 338-368. Bernard. Onlegitimacy political 1987. Theory 15(3): Manin, In Jane.1992.A deliberative representation. Thepoliticsof theoryof interest Mansbridge, edited by MarkP.Petracca.Boulder,CO: Westview interests:Interestgroups transformed, Press. and Yale dynamics jury deliberations. Law Journal Marsden, Nancy.1987. Note:Gender 96:593-612.
government,the subjectionof Mill, John Stuart.1975. Threeessays: On liberty,representative

Press. NewYork: Oxford women. University
National ResearchCouncil. 1989. A commondestiny:Blacks and Americansociety. Editedby

DC: Press. and G. D. Jaynes R. M.Williams. Academy Washington, National NewYork: Oxford Press. Anne.1995.The University politicsofpresence. Phillips, of 1967.Theconcept representation. Press. Hanna. Berkeley: University California of Pitkin, and Political On Theory 9(3):327-52. private public. . 1981.Justice: relating and 1982.Onparticipation. Democracy 2(4):43-54. Pitkin, Hanna, SaraShumer. MA: Pressof Harvard John.1971.A theory University. Cambridge, Belknap Rawls, ofjustice. liberalism. York: New Press. Columbia University . 1993.Political in In powerofpublicideas,edited B. by Reich,Robert 1988.Policymaking a democracy. The B. MA: Robert Reich.Cambridge, Ballinger.
socialismand democracy.Reprint, London:Allen Schumpeter, Joseph.[1942] 1976. Capitalism,

andUnwin.
Sidney, Sir Philip. 1984. The countess of Pembroke'sArcadia. Edited by Maurice Evans.

Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1982. and studies. Butsomeofusarebrave, In Barbara. Racism women's edited Gloria by Smith, T.Hull,Patricia Scott,andBarbara Bell Smith. Westbury, Feminist Old NY: Press.
Smitherman,Geneva. 1977. Talkin'and testifyin': The language of Black America. Detroit:

Press. StateUniversity Wayne Elizabeth 1988.Inessential V. Woman. Beacon Press. Boston: Spelman, Cass.1988.Beyond republican the revival. LawJournal 97:1539-90. Yale Sunstein, Pantheon Books. world. NewYork: Thomas, Keith.1983.Manandthenatural Alexis.1969.Democracy America. in de Tocqueville, Translated George edited by Lawerence, New Anchor Books. by J. P.Mayer. York: testievidence: Socialframework Schuller. 1989.Juries expert and Vidmar, Neil, andRegina
problems52(4):133-76. mony. Law and contemporary

1981.Thepeople's bodies. two 1(1):9-24. democracy Wolin, Sheldon.

376

POLITICAL THEORY/ June 1997

LynnM. Sandersreceivedher Ph.D in political sciencefrom the Universityof Michigan and her A.B. at MountHolyoke College. AssistantProfessorof Political Science at The Universityof Chicago, where she teaches and conducts research in the areas of U. S. politics, public opinion, race and gender