Which is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation: wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, or an informed public? Contribute information, experiences or reflections in support of the positions on this question that you think would be taken by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, or Dewey.
85 thoughts on “Historical Perspectives on Deliberation and Democracy”
Comments are closed.
While the deliberation models posed by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann and Dewey certainly have their advantages and disadvantages, after careful deliberation of my own, I believe Dewey hit the nail on the head. Dewey believes that an informed public, free to make decisions, is key to effective deliberation. An informed public, he argues, free to converse in the open and learn from one another, will be the best driver of democracy. To affirm that this notion is the most potent of them all, we must take a quick glance at the other arguments. Aristotle supports a gifted and wise leadership who would make the best decisions for society, while James Madison, specifically in Federalist Paper #10, argues that it is important to control factions and the only way to do this is to establish a representative democracy or republic in which leaders are elected by the people. Then we have Lippmann who believes that average citizens and even elected officials do not make the best and most informed decisions. While I believe that all of these are valid arguments, it is an informed public that the holds a true foundation for the aforementioned hypotheses.
In the United States we don’t actually have a democracy. We have what is known as a republic and therefore we have the privilege (well some of us) of electing our leaders to make decisions for us. Therefore, it is beyond important that the public is well informed when electing the wisest, most experienced leaders who will ultimately carry out the sound procedures of decision-making and deliberation. Frankly, I am not so sure that in this time in history that our citizens are so informed. There is a clear disconnect between political facts and present day knowledge. I believe people are solely relying on the media for information and we all know there are clear biases in the media. I truly believe that people need to make more time, despite having busy and overwhelming lives, to converse with peers and to take the time to study not only today’s issues, but to also learn about who they are electing to leadership roles. Yes, I know many argue that this will be unrealistic for the masses, but I stand by the fact, as does John Dewey, that we need to do this for the legacy of our future generations.
Jacqui, I agree with your thoughts regarding Dewey’s ideas. We are less connected to many things in life than the previous generations. Your post instantly reminded me of Bowling Alone by Robert D. Putnam. Putnam discusses how Americans are less connected from the essential things, such as their friends, neighbors, family, and government. We spend more time alone than we do with each other and therefore we don’t have a strong sense of community and togetherness. I believe community building is important, regardless of your political or societal views. What matters is that we united and open to discuss (deliberate) and this allows us to be introduced to different ideas. The media has a unique way of displaying news but we need to become informed in other ways. We need to read more books, speak with each other, spend more time in clubs/teams/leagues, and research more about our political leaders/representatives. Furthermore, this year is extremely important because of the presidential election. This isn’t the first time we are having a presidential election but it sure is the first time we have a woman candidate and a man who has no concrete political knowledge or respect for different groups of people. It is our prime time to go out and learn more about these candidates. All in all, Dewey was on the right path when he compared the past generations to the present generations. He states that the “present state of the world is more than a reminder that we have now to put forth every energy of our own to prove worthy of our heritage” (Dewey).
We have many advantages in some respects to live in the age of technology. While our news sources may have a biased slant for a variety of reasons their are other opportunities for people to conduct research via the internet. There are also more opportunities to have discussions with people from all over the country and world. In theory, this should be a renaissance of political discussions and democracy. However, with great power…we are plagued with the spreading of inaccurate information and political discussions via the internet tend to become shouting matches and often veer into two opposing sides just calling each other names. Dewey would be thrilled at the potential and disheartened by the results!
That is the more reason I think that Dewey’s perspectives, is the best guarantor of effective deliberation. When people receive adequate education and information, they become engaged. The result of this engagement is passion,commitment and ownership, which most times leads to effectiveness.
Hi Jacqui,
Touché! When posed the question of what was more important in the search of effective deliberation, I dared to view the question through a different lens by holding all perspectives equal as they (in my view) are all important for deliberation. However, when viewing the question in a more pyramid approach I can see how an informed public can take precedent over other ideals. I agree with you and I believe that today’s population is not as engaged as it should be, more particularly I a time when it is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, people have felt disconnected with the government as there is a sense of dissatisfaction, leading the public to be less incentivized to become part of the “informed public”. Society has chosen to have selective memory and attention when it comes to current issues at both local and national levels as long as they are not “directly affected”. The only point where I would disagree is your statement that the U.S. is not democratic. I believe we are widely known as a representative democracy (in more theoretical terms), but we also have endless characteristics in our government that label us as a democracy; but, this might be a conversation for a prompt later on in the semester. =)
Hi Jacqui,
I completely agree with your belief that people should make more time to converse with one another as a way to obtain information. Due to most media outlets being under corporate control, it is difficult to find trustworthy news sources. Corporations are able to control public perception and if we do not speak with one another and educate ourselves, as Dewey would have wanted, we will find that our political values are controlled by the mainstream media outlets. To become an informed citizenry and understand current events, we need to look into history, the realities behind it, and exchange viewpoints through conversation.
Hi Jacqui,
I completely agree with you in that an informed public is the way to go. I especially liked how you tied it in with electing our representatives. Often times we don’t elect the best candidate to represent and run our country, and the reason is so that the general public does not know anything really, much less even have the desire to vote. I believe if we focus on educating the people first, everything else will follow. People wouldn’t need experts to think for them, and we will be able to elect the best people to deliberate for us.
Jacqui,
I completely agree with you that Dewey’s theory of a well-informed public is the key to effective deliberation. The example of using politics; specifically the process of democracy applied by countries that exert totalitarian principles as opposed to the ones we have in the United States popped into mind. One of my own examples of this is the active participation of well-informed people in the United States, which although is not perfect, is one of the best examples of political participation and is an example of the creation of policies that cannot be made by just one entity, but is divided into different types of approval segments in order for them to be enacted. A recent example of this is the debate on transgender individuals using the bathroom of their choice. In order to debate this topic fully, active and well-informed lobbyists, public organizations, and regular citizens through their informed participation should and do have a say in this issue. He active participation by all members of society and the governmental representatives need to be combined in order to make a final decision for this issue. Other countries that do not participate and effective deliberation for example, for such a vulnerable population and will enact and through no public participation, laws that go against human rights. This is what I thought about when I chose active participation by a well informed public because it allows for a more diverse discussion that leads to better results as opposed to one entity making up the regulations and policies that together, could not form a truly democratic society.
Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, and Dewey each make valid points about effective deliberation. To be completely honest, I found myself changing my answer to this question a few times because I do feel each position has its strengths. However, I ultimately concluded that Lippmann’s concept of expert knowledge is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation. Although I find it is harsh of Lippmann to say that the average individual has “cognitive limitations,” I do believe that sometimes individuals support or advocate for a viewpoint without fully understanding its realities and consequences. In efforts to address any political and economic literacy concerns, experts in the realm of government should use media to educate individuals about important topics and make “the unseen facts intelligible.”
For instance, I, myself, assumed that raising the minimum wage would be beneficial for young employees and individuals of low socioeconomic status. However, through courses in this MPA program and through watching and reading about political debates on minimum wage, I learned that this “picture” in my head was actually clouded. In reality, higher minimum wages would only lead to higher pay for some individuals. Many individuals would actually be forced out of work due to a decrease in a demand for labor. Because I was able to learn from expert economists and politicians via the powerful tool of media, I learned the true facts about raising minimum wage and how doing so doesn’t always paint a pretty picture.
Hi Fran!
You espouse really fascinating points on Lippmann which I hadn’t considered previously. I personally viewed him as a sort of middle-ground between the opposite camps of Aristotle and Dewey.
My biggest qualm with Lippmann is that he still appealed to a higher authority of “experts,” a term, in my view, that is riddled with ambiguity. We have so-called experts who publish findings of relevant research or comment on a topic of interest from their own perspective, which is counter to a more holistic deliberative approach and could be limiting. I believe that experts and their respective fields have become too specialized, whereby each field is in and of itself a faction that seeks to rank their knowledge above other factions’ knowledge. This is to say nothing of experts who are beholden to corporate entities, whose primary incentive is profit (typically at the expense of the welfare of the public).
Outside of a capitalist frame, in a true democracy, I think expert knowledge would be at least somewhat valuable. Still, individuals’ experiences are most genuine when they aren’t influenced by the biases of those in a higher position of power or privilege.
Your post is super thought-provoking. Thanks so much for the insight!!
Hi Fran,
I certainly see the appeal to Lippman after the points that you have made. If individuals are unaware of all the repercussions that their decision can make, they can potentially make the wrong one. Lippman believed that we should use experts to influence public opinion to educate citizens. However, I had an issue trusting individuals that are labeled as experts to have all this power. As I read Lippman’s approach, I still believed that educating our citizens is essential to ensure that they are not swayed by an expert opinion that could actually not benefit us. We should use Reagan’s often used “trust but verify” approach and ensure that our citizens are well- informed and not using experts as their main source of information.
Hi Fran,
You do offer some valid points about Lippmann, as we do need experts in specific areas to be a part of the deliberative process, however the use of experts can give rise to those expert promoting the agenda of special interest groups. The result is that the public interest takes a back seat to special interest in the deliberative process. As part of the solution, we need everyone to become involved in the deliberative process and make informed contributions. Inclusion and informed participation by all, are essential elements of an effective deliberative process.
Greetings,
I definitely like to add on to Cecily’s point to Fran’s point that special interest groups do wield some sort of power over public interest. The most popular example is citing the way gun violence in the US has been influenced by NRA and the way they organize through power. The expert targeting of the NRA has on the public. Where are the experts to counter the way they speak to Republicans in the house? They present the information of doubt in statistics as the media continues to popularize violent crimes in the US. If we are to have a deliberative process then we need to find a way to balance the voices of expertise much to Madison’s idea.
Hi Fran,
Although I find your example to be a great example in proving how people can be clouded in their judgment, I feel it actually serves as a better example to support informed citizenry. Just think about it, how did you reach your final conclusion about minimum wage increase? Sure you listened to experts, but more importantly you were educating yourself. Taking classes and watching films helped open your eyes. Ultimately, education is key to critical thinking, a necessary tool for effective deliberation. How do you think these experts became experts? They were provided with the education to make proper decisions and observations. Therefore it is important that we focus on offering the tools for people to critically think for themselves. However if you strongly believe in expert knowledge, try viewing informed citizenry as a means to obtaining more expert knowledge.
To go along with Fran’s response its hard to pick one specific guarantee of effective deliberation. Each factor is integral for effective deliberation and it’s hard to have one without the other. I do agree though that most effective decisions are made with the guidance of a leader helping to orchestrate the deliberation process. You need the expertise of someone who has the knowledge of the outcome to help those who can not see that full picture. Sometimes our ideals and beliefs can cloud our judgement and we need the guidance of someone who is a little more knowledgeable in a particular area to help us see things from a new perspective.
Hey Fran, I do agree with your that each had their own strengths and I kept changing my answer as well. I myself was mixed with choosing Lippmann or Dewey. It is a good point that you brought up that individuals support claims or viewpoints without fully acknowledging the subject. This happens many times to a human. It is great getting knowledge from expert economists like your example because they study subjects like this their whole lives. We get expert knowledge from our professor through college.
That is a valid point Fran. I do believe that Lippmann had it right, but the only concern would be totally trusting this expert advice. Media can sometimes present information in a skewed way. This is why I still feel that the individual has to make a point to seek out the truth and use their own judgement to a degree. Still your point makes sense as we do rely on those who research to form our own opinions.
Hello Fran,
I agreed with you in the beginning of your post till you sided with Lippmann. I agreed that each of them made a valid point so a balance between all four perspective would be the preferred good deliberation picture.
Hi Fran,
I had the same problem. All of them are making valid point. A little bit of all of the ideas will work for deliberation. In the end however I chose Dewey. The informed citizens spoke to me the most. However the idea of informed citizens, needs some tweaking. I think we all are informed, however our backgrounds, believes, religion have influence how we use the knowledge, and what we want to do with it.
All four thinkers discuss their idea of what effective deliberation is and how to achieve the best outcome. Aristotle believed the best outcome to deliberation is through a wise leader who will lead others to the best understanding. But the extraordinary leader may have ulterior motives and may come from a background of elites. His ideals and values may differ than those around him and therefore we cannot simply depend on an “extraordinary” leader. Madison discussed how the best form of deliberation takes place when there is a strong political system. It is through a checks and balance system we can have effective deliberation. This idea makes more sense to me than Aristotle’s idea because a checks and balance system has representatives that are chosen to deliberate. Power is not invested in one department (branch) but rather distributed.
The final two authors, Lippmann and Dewey make the most sense to me but I believe Dewey’s arguments are more valid. Lippmann puts all his trust in experts because politicians and the public are driven by their own ideals and imagination. They are less concerned about truth and more invested in what they believe to be true. This is a strong point, but Dewey takes my vote because he gives value to the public opinion. He mentions that democracy shouldn’t just be exclusive to political realm. In other words, democracy shouldn’t have boundaries but rather have an impact in our daily life. Dewey thinks experience and education is important for effective deliberation. Dewey states that “Democracy is a way of life controlled by a working faith in the possibilities of human nature” (229). We shouldn’t just think democracy is something our representatives, political leaders, and military leaders should worry about and take care of. Democracy should be something ordinary people exercise too. “For everything which bars freedom and fullness of communication sets up barriers that divide human beings into sets and cliques, into antagonistic sects and factions, and thereby undermines the democratic way of life” (230). Madison was worried about factions (Federalist 10) and so was Dewey but they had different ways of working around them. Dewey thought factions could be best avoided by letting people come together to communicate and deliberate. Deliberation happens when everyone has the right to fully exercise their ideas and thoughts. The right to speak and express should not just be exclusive to voting and choosing your representatives but should make a difference in your daily life.
Lastly, Dewey made the most sense to me because his ideas can be related to what happened in 12 Angry Men. The men were from a similar demographic background but they all had different experiences and personal connections which allowed them to walk through deliberation. They faced some ups and downs but ultimately, they used inferences and anecdotes to understand whether the boy was guilty or not.
I agree with you about the benefit of checks and balances vs Aristotle’s confidence in the leadership of one man. Between Dewey, Lippmann, Madison and Aristotle, it seemed as though Dewey was the philosopher that was most for and of the people.
Kim that is my opinion about the four leaders as well. They each have their own way of what is great and workable but Dewey has the most leverage among them.
Hi Sharmin!
I completely agree with you that Lippmann and Dewey made the most sense. I did like Dewey’s viewpoint of really educating and involving the public, however; I also felt that the public needs information from experts as well. I feel as though the most effective deliberation would have the best of both worlds- a well-informed public and sound experts. Though ideally, I think it would be great if these experts were really vested in serving the best interest of the public rather than driven by their own ideals, as you previously stated.
Hi Sharmin:
I’m in total agreement with you on Dewey. He had a more holistic approach to democracy, and like you, I found the idea of democracy as something exercised in daily life relatable and would most contribute to good deliberation. I found myself wavering between Lippman and Dewey, because one way for the citizens to become active and informed is through experts providing knowledge. So it’s almost like one begets the other. But I am leery of that term “expert”. It seems like there are so many self-proclaimed ones these days, that it’s sometimes hard to decipher what is truth and what the “expert” believes. But, you were successful in making the argument for Dewey (but maybe I’m biased since I chose Dewey as well:))
Hi Sharmin,
I really appreciate thorough dissection of all of these theories and when you draw comparisons between one and the other. Your reference to 12 angry men is also spot on; because some people have particular characteristics that enjoin them, but that does not mean that they are not unique in terms of their backgrounds and how they think. Since as you mentioned, deliberation happens when all individuals are able to exercise the right for giving ideas and mentioning their thoughts, it is necessary that these individuals are able to formulate these ideas based on sound knowledge and also able to actively participate in exercise their rights in this regard. I also agree with you that the act of democracy is not necessarily solely a political process; but is also something which can be applied in a personal sense and in his or her interactions with others. Based on this, I believe that individuals who are able to have effective deliberation must hold themselves accountable for increasing the knowledge and information that they have and how they plan to execute this knowledge in a manner that aligns with the general principles of others as well. This is true democracy and one that entails really trying to understand the opinions and thoughts of other, making compromises and exchanging ideas in order to effectively be able to have all participants happy with the final result.
Hi Shermin, I agree with you on this. I believe Dewey’s perspectives of enabling citizens with adequate information and education on issues, is surely the best guarantor of effective deliberation. For meetings and discussions group to be considered as deliberative forums, discussions must be based on the considerations and understanding of issues, first from members’ perspective and then the collective group. Thus, effective deliberation requires substantial collaboration from all members to achieve cohesiveness. The ingredients for group cohesiveness include engagement and commitment of member, which is enabled by inclusiveness and empowerment of each member.
After reading the works of all four philosophers, I felt most inspired by John Dewey’s “Creative Democracy”. When we look at our systems and structures, it is important to remember as Dewey puts it that our democratic beginnings as a country “was largely the product of a fortunate combination of men and circumstances.” All good relationships take work, including our country’s relationship with democracy. It is not enough to hold onto the idea of democracy as a given.
James Madison’s Federalist 10 embodies the idea that we need to protect our institution against factions. He believed that factions large or small needed to be diluted and not given enough power or voice to disrupt the system. This in theory could be a tool to protect against the elite, aka the 1%. However, in Madison’s protection against factions he also takes away the voice of change, of the kind of uprising needed to make societal changes.
In contrast, John Dewey expresses an optimism and a faith in democracy and people. If Dewey and Aristotle were to discuss deliberation, Dewey would argue that the wise leader is not an individual but instead a quality possessed by all men. It is up to the individual to ultimately pursue his own happiness and freedom.
Hey Kim!
This is a super well-put, succinct description and elaboration of the philosophies elucidated by the four thinkers. I agree with you that Dewey was the most inspiring of the bunch and I’d imagine he would be to many others, as he appeals to the capabilities within us in all. This is especially important in the face of a corporate political climate that potentially strips individuals’ of their sense of agency or, as you had put it, “the voice of change.” So awesome!
I also agree with you on the fact that the *idea* of a democracy is very different from democracy in *practice.* To facilitate a healthy relationship with the democratic ideals this government purports to uphold, deliberation can and must take place at the public level. Unfortunately, Madison was too cynical when it came to individuals presiding over their own interests and this has manifested in agovernment
Sorry! Pressed the ‘post comment’ button by accident.
As I was saying, this has manifested in a government that has a tendency to place the interests over corporate factions than the interests of ordinary citizens.
Great post Kim!!
Hi Kim! I agree with your post and also think that it is up to us to pursue our own happiness and freedom. We simply cannot leave it up to a “wise” leader to make our decisions. Representation is necessary but this does not mean that we should hand over deliberation to one person. Every individual has their idea and perception of what happiness and freedom is and therefore they should be able to voice this. We will always face factions because difference in opinions and thoughts is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean that we should give up deliberation and hand over this process to one “wise” person or one group of people. When we leave representation up to one individual or one branch, we fail to realize that this individual or group of people may be elite and have a different idea of what freedom and happiness is. Someone from a low-income but educated background will have a different idea of what happiness is than an educated elite. We need the low-income and elite person in the same place so we can have a diverse discussion. Lastly, change occurs when there are different voices involved.
Hi Kim,
Definitely agree with you here. While I think that Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 was certainly revolutionary for it’s time, today I don’t really agree with him. Actually, fun fact, as he got older his views would eventually change and he embraced factions so even he doesn’t really support his own ideology in #10. I love that as Americans we have the right to possess different ideologies and vote on those ideologies. That is what makes for effective deliberation. We have illiberal democracies in this world in which citizens get to vote, but they don’t get to THINK and EXPRESS themselves which I think is the most important and crucial aspect to freedom.
As for Aristotle, I think he had great confidence in the role of a man, but not the role of men (or in this case woman and women). Sometimes even the wisest of men and women make mistakes and thus there needs to be a check on their power. As a society that is “by the people and the for people” we must remember to keep the people in the equation. While I have the most up most respect for Aristotle and truly enjoy his writings, I have to side with Dewey here. Love the post!
Hey, Kim! I absolutely agree with you on Dewey. This country was founded on the combination of men in circumstances that felt that England and the taxation were unfair. They stood up against injustice and created a new country. It is up to the man to pursue his own happiness and have the courage to support what is right!
I could not agree with you more. I believe just from the definition of democracy, that this is one of the stronger ideas for having democracy and having deliberation. In the speech by Dewey, he has made it clear that yes the citizens will be informed but they will have the right to gather and have discussions of politics and they are allowed to have differences. Differences are important, for this will create a genuine deliberation and this will be something that is bought about in democracy. It will add to its way of life after both sides articulate their point. I personally, feel that this is the part of democracy that we are missing currently. We rely so heavily on elected officials a wise leader and a structure that many people do not understand how these factors aren’t necessarily contributions to creative democracy.
Studying these four prominent figures and their commentaries on deliberation is an enjoyable practice in understanding the varying perceptions of public discourse and its implications regarding effective policy. Part of the fun is examining the viewpoints of Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, and Dewey, respectively, and their corresponding loss of faith in authoritative models as a means of facilitating deliberation and, channeling the philosophy of Aristotle, the end goal of happiness as it relates to all citizens.
I’ll be forthright: I’m a self-professed socialist, so, many of my personal viewpoints have been molded by a social and political doctrine that entails acknowledging the agency of individual people. Doing so is especially important when considering the state of said individuals, who operate and interact within representative democracies, whereby their interests, contrary to Madison’s ideals, aren’t always properly fulfilled by government officials.
Therefore, as one may readily assume, I align my beliefs on deliberation with those of John Dewey.
This discussion is not only fascinating in and of itself but also coincidental. As I’m typing this, I’m having a conversation with my mother about the current situation in North Dakota and the local government’s decision to build an oil pipeline slated to run across the Missouri River. No further than a mile away from the building site is Standing Rock, a sizable Native American reservation, which habitually relies on the Missouri, the longest river in North America, for its water. Throughout the previous month, protestors, including all seven bands of the Lakota tribe (which haven’t assembled since the Battle of the Greasy Grass on June 25, 1876) and various Black Lives Matter chapters across the country, have successfully disrupted contractors’ efforts at both systematically quashing the uprising and laying the groundwork for the pipeline. Still, protestors face not only aggressive opposition from the local and state police forces but also a pervasive disinterest from the nation’s largest news outlets, the latter of which serves to corrode and further undermine a movement aiming to address and mitigate corporate indifference towards the physical environment and the general public.
It’s a task to deliberate with brevity on global capitalism and the role mass media plays in propping corporate dominance. But I’ll try my best by using the above scenario as an example.
John Dewey acknowledge the omnipresence of a corporate hegemony, which effectively stifles meaningful discourse taking place at the public level. In recent years, as the poles of the political spectrum have been definitively pushing outwards, it seems the public (especially, speaking anecdotally, us millennials) has divested its trust of mainstream media’s coverage of the most universally pressing of issues. One such calamity is that of Standing Rock and the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Historically, policy makers and state officials have tried in earnest to muddle and subsequently erase the plight of Native Americans. As I, and other scholars, see it, accomplishing such is a method of relinquishing state accountability in the wholesale murder of America’s native peoples. Likewise, after ensuring this, the public may hold its faith in ‘the powers that be’ consistent and unwavering. The corporate annex of Standing Rock and the adjacent territory may be a haphazard, perilous act absolved by the public, particularly if the media continues to turn its head away from the native citizens’ discontent.
John Dewey would take note of this phenomenon and likely admonish this fashion of deliberation (or should I say, lack thereof?). Nonetheless, as I had mentioned, the public’s increased skepticism in mass media may compel individuals to seek other forms of deliberation: journalism practiced well below the corporate level, the stratum of discourse where ordinary citizens reside. Public figures like Bernie Sanders have elucidated the ties between corporate wealth and its influence on the content of media from the likes of even the unabashedly ‘liberal’ news sources of CNN, NBC, and CBS.
Such public news outlets as Democracy Now! and Jacobin Magazine (my personal favorite) have emerged in the wake of the current political climate as entities engaged in effective deliberation that entails placing journalists in the midst of conflict, physically situated next to the citizens directly involved. Amy Goodman, the impassioned founder of Democracy Now!, recently published news footage of the ongoing uprising in Standing Rock, which contains valuable interviews of and commentary from “active and informed citizens.” Scenes of protestors on horseback and in large collectives, all in fervent support of not just the global fight for justice but also for fellow conscientious humans’ wellbeing, elicited visceral sensations, the personal effect of witnessing first-hand experience as opposed to second-hand truths.
John Dewey, as I perceive his philosophy, stands for just those fundamental values of deliberation. TEAM DEWEY, BABY!
Jamie,
Awesome post. LOVE the Team Dewey pride. While I am by no means a self professed socialist, I do see the value in the an informed peoplehood who will ultimately lay the foundation for effective deliberation through sound procedures, wise leaders, and experts. I definitely took a different approach then you did, but pleased to see that we came to the same conclusion (wish our political system could work like this).
What a fascinating conversation you had with your mother. Thanks for sharing. I really see value in adding any political theory to modern day situations-that’s the best way to learn. I didn’t even realize that this was going on. Really interesting to hear the media’s side on it. As you may tell from my post, I have slight issues with media reporting due to its major influence on our citizens.
Hey Jamie, thanks for your insight! I have come to appreciate socialism over the past few years, and especially as I try to chip away at Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” What I’ve learned from that book is much different from what I learned in History classes growing up: that the American Revolution wasn’t about freedom of speech, petition, religion, assembly, or press as much as it was about giving certain white men–James Madison’s property owners–the economic power to keep more of their own money, rather than give it to England. As much as I would like to think the Framers had me in mind when they wrote “We the People..,” I know that, in reality, the system they envisioned was one that effectively diffused the passions of the uneducated majority, and deflected class rage onto racial and ethnic minorities. I agree with you and Dewey! The “free marketplace of ideas,” time after time, has proven that disenfranchised, “uneducated” people in America can navigated discourse and deliberation just as Dewey believed they could. Experts, wise leaders, and clever systems don’t always know best or get it right. The power of the elite must be checked by the power of the People (cliche, oops!) Whether the Framers like it or not, the US republican democracy left room for dissenting speech like Democracy Now! and assembly of the Lakota tribes to protest encroachment on their land. Whether anyone listens is another story…
Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, and Dewey were, and have been correct to a certain extent (underline extent) in regards to deliberation in our society. Now, when deciding what approach is deemed as more effective, I believe we should take the U.S. political system as the main case study to respond to this prompt. Now, if I may, I would like for us to envision an equation where “effective deliberation” is the result and our variables are wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, and informed public. To illustrate see below:
Wise leadership + sound procedures + expert knowledge + informed public = Effective Deliberation
Please note that I acknowledge that the U.S. political system is not the most democratic or deliberative system in the world; however, I believe we have a rather robust system set in place.
Moving on, let’s analyze each variable in our equation and where they fall in our current system.
First, we can link wise leadership with the highest example being the President (and to similar extents political figures that preside over bodies in our government such as the President of the Senate (Vice President), and Speaker of the House of Representatives to name a few. Here, wise leadership is needed as mentioned by Aristotle and this example is widely seen in virtually all governments where there is a Head of State. Society needs a leader that will be capable of executing the decisions necessary to prosper as a nation.
Our second variable talks about sound procedures which translates into a system of checks and balances that the U.S. government has through the three branches. This prevents the “wise leader” from abusing power or other elitist groups from concentrating interests among few. This division of power has functioned quite well since the inception of the U.S. Constitution.
The third refers to expert knowledge and their role is to remove any form of already existing perception (stereotypes) in the minds of both politicians and the public. Policy and understanding of these do not render the same outcomes as ideas can be construed in various ways. This function is carried out by think tanks, civic organizations, media, among others.
Lastly, one very important element that cannot be left behind is an informed public. Our government allows for all levels of decision making (or most of it), to be presented to organized civil society such as public hearings, city councils, and community boards. These meetings empower the informed public and facilitate a more educated environment. This will enable the public to decide what is best for their own economic and social development.
All four variables mentioned before are part of what I consider effective deliberation. Without one, the equation lacks the link to bring the outcome. All elements can be seen as gears that are interconnected. When one moves, all others move, and without one, the process of effective deliberation is stalled.
Hi Daniel,
I agree with your post as all elements are needed for deliberation to be successful. The US political system does exemplify this model, as all components are present: the wise leader, the system of checks and balances, special interest groups lobbying for their agenda (the food lobby), as well as an informed public. I too believe that if one element were not present the deliberative model would not be as effective.
I think you make great points highlighting the way our government, and political system is influenced by all four of these deliberators. From the federal to the local levels, our network of understanding has to combine these elements in order to get a truly just system.
As we learned from Gastil’s reading last week, effective deliberation requires that we thoroughly analyze a problem and obtain a solution only after we have considered diverse points of view. After reading Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann and Dewey’s views on effective deliberation I certainly noticed appealing aspects that each had. Initially, I was most convinced by Dewey’s perspective on maintaining an informed citizenry that should involve themselves with political affairs. He emphasized the importance of an educated citizenry that should frequently converse with one another to exchange ideas and information. With a well informed citizenry, political decision making would not be left to institutions and politicians alone.
However, I believe Madison’s viewpoint on a system of checks and balances is the most important in guaranteeing effective deliberation. Madison was aware that man’s self interest would obstruct his judgment. He believed that the public good would be disregarded by the superior party and its interests and therefore sound procedures should be put in place to prevent this. Yet, our procedures have failed to prevent the rich and powerful from influencing the policies that get passed. As I was reading Madison’s perspective, I recalled a Princeton and Northwestern University study that I had read a while ago. In this study, it was shown that the economic elite and organizations representing business interests have a tremendous impact on all policy that is passed. Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the interests of the majority of citizens, but do so in favor of the wealthy and special interest groups. Therefore, even though we can maintain an informed citizenry, there are still impediments that will prevent our voices from being heard. Essentially, an update of our current system of checks and balances is necessary to prevent the elite from influencing policies that benefit their interests and not those of the majority.
Gilens M, Page PI (2014) Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics.
Hi Leslie,
I find your comment to be quite interesting as it dissects the reason behind why you believe checks and balances are an effective way of maintaining democracy. As I understood from your comment, this is because it just regards to personal opinions and judgments that are made by individuals and places systems that disregard these interests. However, while I was doing my own research pertaining to this topic I figured out that to effectively implement systems of checks and balances to ensure proper democracy, there is no guarantee that the individuals who have placed the systems are not impeded by their own judgments. Since human beings are always susceptible and prone to error, it is impossible for absolutely no opinions or prejudices to be placed into any process or system made by humans. Therefore, it is important that all individuals are able to take part in the systems as I believe Dewey was trying to convey, as opposed to a specific set of people placing the systems which may become corrupt are outdated later on.
All four historical perspectives on deliberations, including that of Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, and Dewey guarantees effective deliberation, though the effectiveness of the first three is contingent on purpose. From Aristotle perspectives, good deliberation led to decisions that are beneficial and satisfactory to all parties. Based on Aristotle’s assumptions, effective deliberation will be congress making effective financial or international relations decisions, leading to peace and harmony. Madison’s views relied on formal structures including, an effective government, and smaller groups serving as checks and balances on the deliberations of congress. His perspectives favored enhancing standard qualities among deliberators. These perspectives are adequate for the debating style in the representative deliberations of the legislature, where deliberating is overall competitive in favor of the winning faction. In his view, Walter Lippmann advocated for experts opinion to guild the public in decisions formations because he believed the average citizens have severe cognitive limitations, preventing them from forming effective opinions to engage in effective deliberation. Therefore, he advocated for experts opinion to guild the public in decision formations. This perspective is suited for deliberations involving negotiations between countries in diplomatic issues and other technical issues such as union issues. Since the goal of deliberation is reaching a good conclusion on policy issues, John Dewey’s perspectives can be considered the most effective guarantor of effective deliberation. He suggested different ways of involving the citizenry in the deliberative decisions process, which produces effective results for all involve. John Dewey believes in forming trust and educating the average citizen to engage in meaningful and productive deliberation. In his views, only informed citizens are capable of forming opinions, necessary for building autonomy and experience to engage in effective deliberation. According to Dewey, true democratic principles lead to religious, racial, and political tolerance in human equality, freedom of speech, association and the press, which he asserted is the heart of democracy.
When citizens are free to form perspectives and express opinions on issues that affect their lives and their communities’, policies and its implications are deliberated by the citizens in the community as opposed to leaving decisions to experts’ opinions. In effective deliberations, participants are aware of alternatives, consider consequences, and build commitments. For example, deliberating ways of bridging the health care disparities in the American society provides the citizens with consequences, alternatives, and commitments necessary for engaging in effective deliberation. As community issue of nonmedical factors such as poverty, housing, hunger, racism, and bias were proposed to be pioneers for bridging health disparities. The Institute for Health Care (IHI) reported in a White Paper that racial and ethnic disparities were estimated to have costed the U.S. about $60 billion in excess medical expenses in 2009, and the sum is projected to reach $353 billion by 2050, if the current health care disparities are not corrected. The IHI had recommended communities commitment as its first recommendations to help develop a framework for achieving health equity. Looking at all the four perspectives of deliberation, citizenry engagement principles, based on John Dewey’s perspectives are sure to encourage citizenry commitment.
I believe looking at the idea of democracy from Dewey’s perspective, it takes the power of one and gives it to many. This is the reason that I agree with allowing citizens to have free expression because it will allow for great deliberation of issues within communities. Dewey points out in different ways that deliberation is a factor within democracy which makes democracy. Without deliberation, we would still have the same set of rules that were set forth 200 years ago but Dewey is an advocate for change. Deliberation is another way to keep creative democracy alive and constantly developing.
In my estimation the most important guarantee of effective deliberation involves all four elements: wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, as well as an informed public.
Aristotle believed that wise and skillful leadership was needed for effective deliberation in order to lead the public to the correct decisions for the greatest good. This approach may have worked in small societies however, in today’s society this model may not be as effective, as one strong leader can lead to an autocratic leader emerging, and the process of democracy being derailed. We see evidence of a strong leaders guiding the deliberative process in countries like North Korea and Russia, however this has resulted in the will of people being suppressed and become subordinate to the will of the leader.
James Madison believed in the idea of checks and balances and a formal structure of procedures and laws, more than the abilities of a gifted leader. Checks and balances are an important part of an effective deliberative model; however, this is not enough to ensure that good decisions will be made, as Dewey noted. The formal machinery may facilitate the enactment of “good policy when average citizens involve themselves in public affairs” through public education and the free and open exchange of ideas and information. A formal structure of procedure is essential, however this cannot operate in isolation, as we saw from the readings that disputes between political parties have led to civil war.
Lippmann believed that experts with knowledge in specific areas were needed, as he believed the average citizen had severe “cognitive limitations” which hampered deliberation. I disagree with this model, as all individuals should be involved in the process of deliberation, and not excluded because of “cognitive limitations” since this would result in a deliberative process that would only include those who are intelligent. This seems to be exclusionary and does not facilitate effective deliberation and could give rise to special interest groups and private enterprise controlling the deliberative process.
Other exclusionary tactics have been used over the years to exclude groups of individuals from the electoral process including: property qualification which meant only white male landowners, racial qualification which denied black the right to vote, gender qualification which prohibited women from voting and the voting age. All these tactics were used to exclude entire groups from participating in the deliberative process.
John Dewey espoused the ideals of an informed public and that ideas and information should flow freely in an open process. It involves free gatherings and personal inventiveness, allowing individuals to be creative in nature. An informed public is essential to the process of deliberation, as everyone needs to have a say in the process and contribute in deliberation.
In the recently concluded Democratic run-offs we saw Senator Bernie Saunders exemplify some of these ideas of Dewey during his campaign. In one of his final speeches in New York his “Where we go from here?” speech, he rallied his supporters by telling them “You are the revolutionaries” and that his platform was about “Empowering people to understand that democracy is not a spectator sport.” Saunders believed that everyone needed to become involved in the democratic process in order to “Revitalize American democracy” and create the social and political change he campaigned for. In his speech, Saunders highlighted the exclusionary tactics used during the Democratic and Republican primaries in New York City, as almost 3 million New Yorkers were denied the right to vote. This proved his point, that the process was flawed, as so many were denied the fundamental right to vote and be a part of the democratic process.
Consequently, I believe that all four models: wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, and an informed public are all essential to the deliberative process.
Hi Cicely,
I’m surprised to have found a person who also agrees/posted on all four elements as an essential part of deliberation. I believe that it would make sense to group the ideas of Aristotle and Madison together as they would balance out each other. The leader would provide guidance to the institutions, but the institutions would prevent the leader from abusing power. In the other group, Lippmann and Dewey speak of the voice of experts and the voice of the public, respectively. In society, I believe we must have a group of experts that can provide direction and a more seasoned response to the inquiries of today’s issues. However, on the other hand, the public voice is an indispensable element in the process of deliberation as nobody other than the community itself can determine what is in their best interest. Without their voice, leaders will have no incentive to uphold promises or work towards the greater good. A more informed public will rebel against the oppressors, know when to react against hostile policies, and will know when it is the end of a leader’s term. All in all, I agree with you in that all elements are necessary for an efficient deliberative process.
After reading the four historical perspectives on deliberation and democracy, I find that all four viewpoints have validity, but if I had to choose one that outweighs the others in terms of importance to the goal of deliberation and most conducive to democracy, I would have to choose an active and informed citizenry, as proposed by Dewey.
A wise leader, as put forth by Aristotle, with “phronesis” or practical intelligence and virtuous character, is more susceptible to abusing his/her powers without the checks and balances and other procedures Madison favors. And even with systems in place to prevent abuse and the domination of one group over another, and experts with the correct information, if the citizens do not actively seek out this information and elect representatives or vote for legislation based on the intelligence they have gathered, then all the other perspectives fall to the wayside.
I see condescension in Lippman’s concept that people are cognitively limited, and need to be guided in their thinking. In this information age we live in where knowledge is literally at the tip of our fingers if we choose to seek it out, (speaking of developed countries) I don’t think that experts are needed as much.
I became a US citizen in 2011, so 2012 was the first time I was able to vote. By talking to my co-workers back then, I discovered that many of them only vote in Presidential elections. A few didn’t realize the implications of not voting for their US representative or senator, and that they may be in effect making it harder for legislation to be passed that would benefit them. The majority of them had never voted at the local level. If they were to become more informed about the issues and what is at stake, they may be more apt to vote and democracy aided, since their voice, however small on its own, may have an impact once multiplied.
Nicely done. Agree strongly with the points you made on the second paragraph.
Hi Norrisa!
I also felt that each perspective had its valid points. Despite Lippmann’s valid appoints, I also thought that he was harsh and condescending in regards to cognitive abilities.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience! I agree that citizens should become more active and seek involvement. I do also see the value of an informed public and wish that individuals became educated on current issues in their local community. Every little bit can make a difference!
Hi Norissa! I completely agree with your points, especially the last part. It is important to vote for the next president, but it is also important to vote for your senator, mayor, and council member. Local representatives will be the ones that will bring immediate change in their districts as their work is supposed to be more community based. If someone has a problem with their social security benefits then they would contact their senator’s office to understand and even expedite the process. When my new neighbors were playing loud (and unbearable) music, my brother wrote to our local council member. She contacted our management office and arranged for us to mediate and find a solution to this problem. Bottom line – vote for your local representatives too because they are supposed to directly work for you!
Although I understand what you mean about Lippmann, I cannot help but think about the success of Fox News and the decline of “real news” overall. I wonder how much of the fact that we’re so severely under-informed as a country has to do with the lack of “experts” in the field of “information”.
I completely hear you, Erinda. Too many self-proclaimed “experts’ out there either ill-informing or under-performing their audience. It makes it so much more important for us, as concerned citizens, to actively seek out as many sources for our information as possible, including independent news sites, and hopefully, a bit of fact and truth will shine through.
I thought the same exact thing Erinda. While we do rely on experts i feel like there has to be a clear definition of what makes you one on a particular subject before people take your information at face value.
I think an important guarantee of effective deliberation is having an informed public. Dewey believes that creating a personal character is important to determine a purpose in an individual’s life. An individual can think outside of the box from institutions they are accommodated to. Dewey brings up the hatred and prejudice of Nazism. If we are moved by the prejudice, it is our own democratic faith in human equality. The Nazi government found killing Jews and other groups politically correct, and the US government also believed that racial segregation was politically correct. And so if one does not stand up against to the government, how are we going to create change or end it? I think a perfect example to use is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King and other civil right activists who did not stand down when they received death threats, attacked by racists or police, etc. They kept continued to peacefully stand up for the cause that every human is equal, and everyone deserves the same rights. They marched and marched till Dr. King got to Washington D.C. on the biggest opportunity for everyone in the US to see and say, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ “Like Dewey says in Creative Democracy, the universal right is everyone should live a free life, and Dr. King made the intelligent judgment to stand up for what is wrong. He showed others that they can stand up to fight for their rights. He paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eventually be passed.
Hi Nabjot,
I agree with you on taking your standpoint towards Dewey. It is up to the people to decide and to stand up for what is right. You use great examples as support for your standpoint.
-Dianna
It is evident that each of the models for democratic deliberation holds its strengths and weaknesses, and with this in mind it is difficult to confidently assert that one will provide the most effective deliberation. Unless each method is tested equally in a scientific fashion, it is frankly impossible to accurately determine which will provide the best results. Nonetheless if I were to choose based on the readings, I would side with John Dewey and his position on informed citizenry. As to why, I will explain by first providing an argument against each of the other methods. Afterwards, I will elaborate on my reasoning for siding with John Dewey.
Aristotle advocated above all for strong leadership guided by wisdom. The problem with this is what defines wisdom. From my understanding of Aristotle, it appears that wisdom is granted to those who can guide the assembly to the greater good of the state. This sounds good at first, but after analyzing it again it seems that this method can easily turn awry. For one what is ultimately good for the state is heavily dependent on those in power. And at his time, those who decided the state’s best interests were the elites. Of course this not apply to today’s society and thus the idea of faction interest or absolute power does not concern us. However defining wisdom still remains an issue. What one considers conventional wisdom is subjective and thereby prone to change depending on who is in charge. In an ever changing society and government relying on conventional poses a threat to our stability. We can’t rely on an inconsistent method.
Lippmann was a proponent for expert knowledge and believed only those who knew what they were doing, should deliberate on the matter. At first, I was strongly in favor on this position. That changed once I read about factions and the problem that can arise from institutional interests. If we simply relied on experts, we are in a way granting total authority to these experts on their specific area. This can cause detrimental effects in certain realms such as economics and military. Let’s take our country for example, there is a reason why our President is the Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy instead of the general. We don’t want to fall into a military dictatorship.
As for sound procedures, I have mixed feelings towards it. The reason so is that I am basing this notion heavily on our system of checks and balances. Sure it does any amazing job in ensuring fairness for all, but it only acts as safeguards. In regards to deliberation, sound procedures will only prevent bad deliberation from arising not necessarily that the most effective deliberation will follow. Lastly if I am not mistaken (which I can certainly be), didn’t our founding fathers purposely design our government to be somewhat ineffective to prevent us from straying into an absolute power? You don’t have to take my word for it, but there seems to be some evidence for it. Our Congress is constantly in deadlock.
Finally in favor of Dewey’s position, I believe informed citizenry would produced the most optimal deliberation. Of course before I provide my reasoning, I will address the faults. One concern with informed citizenry is stereotypes. Creating stereotypes is a natural human behavior. It is good in that allows people to understand the world more easily and it is bad in that can leads to terrible, demonizing assumptions about certain people. The second aspect is what individuals like Lippmann uses an argument for expert knowledge. However it shouldn’t be the case that we rely expertise to make our decisions. We can simply use expert knowledge as a supplement to educate the people of these stereotypes. This way citizens are “informed” of their faults and work around them.
As for my reasoning, wouldn’t it make sense that focus should be placed on educating our citizens. After all our citizens are the ones will the next leaders. It’s great to rely on experts but if don’t properly educate our people first, who will become the next experts. Likewise we can have the great procedures in place, but if the people utilizing the system is incompetent why bother. Lastly if Aristotle really cared about the greater good of the state, wouldn’t it more useful to consider the people they wish to serve. Overall I believe if we wish to create the most effective deliberation, we concentrate on providing the tools to the group that is diverse in opinions and the best representation of the country’s standing.
Agree. Constant deadlock in the Congress is a perfect example of how the check and balance system proposed by James Madison is not effective in this case.
Jonathan, I especially liked your point questioning what exactly defines Aristotle’s wisdom. Obviously, different people will have very varying opinions on what type of qualities and opinions a “wise leader” should have. This is why I agree with you that it is most important to ensure that the public is knowledgable and active. The higher level the citizens are able to reach, the more likely it is that the leader they elect is truly wise in the eyes of the majority of people. In order to do this, the people must understand who would genuinely be the best leader for the current state. And they also must feel motivated to participate in policy in order for the majority of citizens to really have a voice.
It makes the most sense to me that deliberation is most effective when the greatest number of people have the greatest amount of knowledge possible. While I agree with Aristotle that wise leaders aid the deliberative process in an assembly, I do not believe that a wise leader guarantees wise deliberation. Madison’s arguments in Federalist 10 extend the idea of phronesis not only to a single leader, but to a class of leaders within a republic. Lippmann argues that those who have expert knowledge in policy areas should play a key role informing public opinion and public policy. Unlike Lippmann, Madison acknowledges that all humans–yes, even experts–are incapable of making independent decisions in the Public’s interest, divorced from their own personal and political interests. Therefore, the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution, and the soon-to-be instituted Bill of Rights, seek to limit the powers of the majority from oppressing the rights of the minority. Finally, Dewey takes the most optimistic tone of the philosophers by stating his “belief in the Common Man” to deliberate effectively on his own. And so, in support of my initial thesis, Dewey’s philosophy is the most ideal for effective deliberation because it advocates for a democracy in which people, under the “proper conditions” of a free democracy and adequate public education, deliberate peacefully and intelligently for the good of the Public.
I hate to disagree but I think the saying, “too many cooks spoil the soup” is very applicable here. If you have too many wise people that all think they know best all deliberating with each other, then no one is compelled to listen to the other person. While I agree that it is important for there to be a democracy and for people to be able to state their opinion, I also strongly feel that you need one person or a small group of people as leaders helping to aid the process. If everyone would just be able to say what they want and then act upon it because it’s what they feel is right- all chaos would break loose. Good deliberation should be people being able to speak their mind and then an educated leadership processing and sorting all the various opinions. Without the guidance of a good leader, all the good ideas would be lost.
I suppose in the ideal democracy, all four principles would play an effective part. Personally, I favored Dewey’s informed citizenry approach, but I also hear what Atara is saying about someone/small group to guide the deliberation process and prevent the chaos of too many voices. I would be wary of this leader or group succumbing to their own self-interests, as Madison warned. I think that as long as there are procedures in place to prevent this, the voice of the people should take precedent in deliberation.
Hello Norrisa,
I agree an ideal democracy should integrate the four principles. Dewey’s position I favor the most because its geared toward collectivism. Collectivism is important because all views, whether sophisticated or not when given occasion to expression creates a participatory environment. When citizens of high and low estate see themselves as part of decision making process they invest time and resources.
I think all four deliberation methods proposed by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann,Dewey all have their pros and cons. I think it all depends on the situation and circumstance , and that one method would be more effective than the others. For example. a CEO of a big company would be more effective using Aristotle method to lead, while manager of a small factory would be more effective in reaching the production goal by using the Lippmann method.
If I had to pick one method of deliberation, that would be Dewey’s. I think we all need to be informed in order to make effective deliberation.
I have been thinking about this idea for a while and I haven’t been able to settle on one effective deliberation method. I believe that effective deliberation requires much expertise, a skillful leader, an informed public, and a sound procedure as well. All of these factors are necessary in order to come to a unanimous decision amongst a group. From my personal experience, I find that it is crucial for all members of the group to respect the opinion of others in the group. My job as a program coordinator requires me to work with a team and create policies. I find that the decisions that we make are far more effective when our team is respectful towards one another and when we allow room for each member to share his/her ideas. This creates an open environment where people can build off of each other’s ideas.
I do feel that a combination of Aristotle and Dewey’s ideas would create an ultimate deliberation product. When these two ideas are combined, a skillful leader and an informed public, there is a unique outcome that allows for citizens to contribute, while having the security of a wise leader at the same time. In the event that a group disagrees on something, the wise leader hopefully has the ability to direct the group and provide them with clarity in the areas that they are in disagreement. Aristotle’s idea of a wise leader is demonstrated in the movie “12 Angry Men” where Henry Fonda plays the role of a “wise leader”. Although the 12 men were in disagreement at certain points of the movie, Henry Fonda managed to persuade them all into forming a unanimous decision using his unique leadership qualities.
It is important for a group of people who are making a decision to have a wise leader who they respect and look up to. A wise leader who has the proper knowledge will be able to give clarity to the group and advise them when they are uncertain. However, it is also crucial for people to share ideas with each other and work as a team. An informed group of people should work together and have a wise leader as a source of direction and security. This will enable a group to make effective decisions.
Atara, I love your comments about combining the ideologies of Aristotle and Dewey. I also struggled with deciding between these two figures. It is interesting because I concluded with the opposite approach. In looking at these two ideologies specifically, you chose leadership because it will be the best guidance for the public. I leaned towards Dewey with the reasoning that a strongly informed and active public would surely elect a wise leader. It is interesting to go back and forth between which ideology could impact the other to a larger extent.
Hi Atara,
I was leaning towards a combination of both Aristotle and Dewey’s ideas of what make a good deliberation. I too agree that it is important for our society to have a wise leader to look up to but at the same time to have individuals in the society to be able to voice their opinions and share ideas. Although I decided to mainly focus on Dewey’s concept being that every single human being shares things and contributes to society as a whole I do think Aristotle’s is important as well. I found it hard to pick between the two.
-Dianna
Overall I feel that all 4 thinkers have valid thoughts on what goes into effective deliberation and are in fact all essential, even with their pros and cons.
With Aristotle’s description of wise and reasonable leadership, I couldn’t help but to think of our current president. President Obama has lead the United States under sound judgement and has a wisdom that i believe got him elected . His background in organizing and exposure to many of the issues that americans face made him an ideal candidate for the majority of Americans. While I do agree with Aristotle , there is always a chance that wise leadership can lead to dictatorship and abuse of power.
I found myself also agreeing with James Madison’s points on deliberation , as a system of checks and balances is key. The only issue I found was that the idea of small factions keeping larger factions in check. I immediately thought of the case of marriage equality and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She garnered support from small groups who believed that she should be able to go against the law because of her religious beliefs. Although not an institutionalized faction in this case , smaller factions like states and cities can produce a collective thought that creates prejudice and bias and in turn infringes on the rights of individuals.
Walter Lipmann believed in expert knowledge which is important if anyone is to make an informed decision. He believed there should be an organization that can give the public this knowledge. A knowledge free from stereotypes and bias. Although I agree , I can’t help but feel that this organization would need to have a system of checks and balances aswell ( what constitutes someone being an expert?) . There would have to be an absolute level of trust in this organization and the public would still need to form opinions for themselves and not always take “expert knowledge “ at face value.
I believed I would find myself agreeing most Dewey’s belief in an informed public being the most effective when deliberating . When i found that he meant that the public can make informed decision without the need for a government and expert knowledge, my opinion changed to a degree.I believe that although we should have faith in citizens judgement and intelligence, government helps to make for better organization, expert knowledge helps the individual to make informed decisions and having a wise leader that can represent our collective on an international level are necessary .
I really like your example of Kim Davis as representing the “faction” issue. I think that Madison’s idea of checks & balances were meant to avoid precisely this kind of problem and as you said, despite it not being “institutional practice,” her actions certainly caused lots of problems and gave voice to some extremist views. I’ve never quite understood why she wasn’t fired for insubordination/refusing to do the job she was hired to do.
While Madison’s “well-built system” is certainly important, it will immediately collapse if the people (citizens and leadership) within the system are incompetent. What is the point of a system, leader, or expert information if the people are not active citizens as Dewey prioritized? After weighing all of these pieces, I could not decide between the wise leader and active and informed citizens. I thought, a wise leader would certainly ensure that his/her citizens are informed and active. And active and informed citizens would surely elect a proper and wise leader.
Ultimately, I believe that these two go hand in hand, but in my opinion, it is the people who inspire the rest of the pieces in this puzzle including leadership, system, and facts. Deliberation must come from the ground up. If the foundation (the people) is strong then the rest will build itself up. A group of citizens that is informed will seek out the collection of expert data. Active and informed citizens will be motivated to elect a wise leader. Lastly, an active population will strive to be a part of a well-built political system.
Unfortunately, American society does not follow Dewey’s model today as many citizens are neither informed nor active. A lack of activity can be seen in the fact that barely a majority of Americans vote in elections. American media may be obsessed with the upcoming election, but how many Americans are actually watching the news and fact-checking their sources? No one seems to care to seek out a team of experts. As explained above, if the American public was more motivated to be active members in our political system and was more informed on current political events, the rest of these pieces would fall into place.
Hi Yael! I agree that a well-informed public is the surest guarantee of good deliberation because they will be wise enough to elect wise leaders, participate in or change the political system, and seek out expert analysis. Our system works with all four areas of deliberation, albeit imperfectly. But, without even the lackluster motivation of the modern American public, I don’t think our society would be as free as it is. Thanks for your clear explanation!
Having read the positions of John Dewey, James Madison, Aristotle, and Walter Lippman on the role of deliberation in democratic institutions. It is my opinion that’s wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, and an informed public are ideals that when woven together, epitomizes John Dewey’s position on what is reflective of a representative democracy, “The formal machinery of representative democracy only works to enact good policy when average citizens involve themselves in public affairs in personal ways.” Wise leadership, whether by an individual or a council of individuals, must see their role in the democratic process as facilitator(s) of the deliberative process of participatory governance. Elections, which is a form of deliberative process in democratic environments, allows citizens to select representatives based on positions of values, self-interest, etc. Sound procedures such as the jury deliberative process follows in the same vain, it’s a process that is designed to explore all inferences capable of leading to a judgement that favors one party over the other. An informed citizenry is vital because information is knowledge. An entire citizenry, informed or less-informed, must never entrust the affairs of state to a select few because of their perceived levels of comprehension on issues of state. Some Men when left to their own devices, have a tendency to seek personal good. James Madison put it succinctly when remarked that “One of the reason that some of the original limitations on democratic participation now seem repugnant is that, although they purportedly existed to serve the public interest by increase the quality of deliberation, they also, and perhaps more importantly, served special interests.” It is also the prerogative of states and governments to educate its citizens on matters of state if they lack comprehension in complex issues.
I agree with your analysis—partially. It is tempting to conclude that Dewey’s perspective, which is very compelling, is a composite of the positions of Aristotle, Lippmann and Madison. However I also believe that the emphasis on what is necessary for successful deliberation changes over time—but on a deeper level, really doesn’t change.
One of the ways to view this if through socio-historic and significant-event lens. Aristotle was born in a time (356 BC) when morality and character were considered preeminent factors in almost everything; and not surprisingly considered phroneses, an individual trait, as most important to deliberation. Madison (1751 – 1836) just after the American Revolution, in a time of revolution and upheaval, considered man’s distrustful nature as a given, and structure, process and order inimical to effective deliberation. Dewey (1859-1952), would have witnessed the American Civil War and the subsequent Proclamation of Independence therefore his deep consideration of the rights and importance of the individual is not difficult to comprehend. Lippmann (1889-1974), like prolific NYC builder Robert Moses, both witnesses to the Great Recession, rise in automation (e.g. Ford etc.) and huge, complex structures, considered expert knowledge as paramount to effective deliberation.
The emphasis on what guarantees effective deliberation will change after you and I are gone, but it consistently has been, and continues to be about the objectives of two or more people and their motivation/connection to that objective.
Combining the various components presented to us by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann and Dewey should be general “good practice” for effective deliberation. I’m simply thinking about this in terms of my professional experiences. “Wise leaders” are those people with the capacity to navigate all sorts of political waters. They have excellent communication skills that help them make convincing arguments and they’re able to inspire others towards a common goal. But no “one” individual is perfect, being a wise leader is not enough. Sound procedures help to keep leaders in check and ensure that there isn’t a complete imbalance of power, as Madison wrote in Federalist 10. What if a leader decided to make unanimous decisions that ultimately have an impact on the whole organization? In most organizations, there are rules in place for such instances. There are boards of directors that need to be convinced etc.
What could be accomplished in a staff meeting if all responsibility was put on the leader? What if no time limit was placed? No agenda was set? No one came prepared? All of the procedures that are implemented before, during and after meetings are set parameters that make it easier to reach conclusions on new projects or address outstanding organizational issues.
Without a combination of all these different components of deliberation, there would be imbalance which would lead to disharmony and ultimately a dysfunctional atmosphere.
On a larger scale, many people would look at this election cycle and wonder about democracy, deliberation and leadership. However, looking at your example, what if you’re a wise leader with poor ethics, does that impact deliberation? Can deliberation still be considered successful? How would you quantify Enron’s collapse? It had a board with rules and procedures, yet their deliberations led to the collapse of a very large company with life savings of thousands of people. Maybe those deliberations were successful for a handful and fateful for others? It is complex. I do believe however that different combinations of all of the positions put forward, combined with the motivations of the parties involved will create effective deliberation.
It was not an easy decision to pick one specific important guarantee of effective deliberation. I viewed each guarantee with both the positive and negative outlook that it would have on society.
Initially I thought that Aristotle’s argument on good deliberation being guided by a wise leader was the most important. I figured that someone who practices wisdom and has a quality of phronesis is important to have in society but then I thought that it could also have a negative effect on society. Wisdom can change a person not only into a wise leader but at times it can turn that person against all of human kind. The human psych can change at any moment. What one person thinks one day can drastically shift the next day. It becomes dangerous to only accept the idea that a wise leader is what is most important.
I came to the conclusion that John Dewey’s guarantee of good deliberation is most important. Dewey believed that good deliberation and political decision-making can’t be trusted by political institutions or experts alone. It is important to understand Dewey’s thought process towards this reasoning. We all live in a democracy. As written in Dewey’s article, “democracy is a way of life controlled by a working faith in the possibilities of human nature”. Everyone has their own leadership in their own life and the democracy as a whole is controlled by every single human beings actions that make up the democracy. With this makeup, living comes as experience to which every single human being shares things and contributes to society as a whole. If we did not each have our own lives and ways of expressing ourselves we would be robots living in a dictatorship. It is the citizens in the society who makeup the deliberation.
I had the same issues in regards to deciding who had the most effective methods of deliberating. Dewey too was the one who I sided with as well. Great job in choosing an exemplary quote. He used ‘democracy is a way of life’ very often throughout the reading.
From my experience, I would have the same notion as Dewey because I feel that we are living in a time where large populations of the public are not accountable and informed of politics. Democracy is not just a wise leader because I see that as a hierarchy that will only listen to what it is told and possibly limit people’s political perspectives and kill the creativity within democracy. Sound procedures are also another factor that look good in theory but are often difficult to follow in practice without biases points of view views based on culture, knowledge and experience. One of the main reasons why I agree with Dewey is because he gives many perspectives of what democracy is and how it is a way a life. As stated “ [W]e acted as if our democracy were something that perpetuated itself automatically; as if our ancestors had succeeded in setting up a machine that solved the problem of perpetual motions in politic. […] [W]e have had the habit of thinking of democracy as a king of political mechanism that will work as long as citizens were reasonably faithful in performing political duties.” Dewey points out that this system that we have was not created to sustain itself, we as active and informed citizens must maintain our vision of democracy as it will change from emerging generation but should still be of a moral component. There is more to democracy than a system, it is a life style that has to be embodied by most citizens in the form of active participation and well informed.
This is a difficult prompt to answer due to the fact that all four thinkers provide great ideas to create effective deliberation. In my opinion, balance is key, if it were up to me I would combine all four.
Aristotle shines a positive light on his philosophies. In one of the assigned readings, it states ‘There is pretty much an objective at which everybody aims, both each in private and all together, both in pursuit and in avoidance. And this, to put it in a nutshell, is happiness and its elements.’ He states that everyone’s main goal is happiness and he goes into details on what creates this happiness such as friends, mental and physical health, healthy offspring’s etc.… In another reading I had come across another quote by Aristotle ‘where your talents and the needs of the world cross; there lies your vocation.’ My understanding from analyzing Aristotle is that happiness comes from perfecting your talent. In ‘Dilemmas of Democratic Deliberation’ Plato’s argument is that you would not go to a ship builder to have him/her fix your shoes. Which is why it is essential to allow the elite in being able to represent the majority. This is great only when written on paper but it does not allow enough room for constituents or the average person to voice their opinions. This may not be ideal for a large country.
Madison did massive research on how to govern a large republic. He had requested resources from Thomas Jefferson in different libraries from Europe. ‘It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.‘ He explains the dangers of faction and why it is important to have a system where checks and balance takes place. The solution to faction is by having other faction so that way not one faction will have too much power. He explains how the system will never be perfect.
John Dowey continuously describes democracy as ‘a way of personal and individual life’ ‘a way of life’. It becomes repetitive. Ideally, this is great and I am on board with wanting individuals to be informed about politics but the reality is that there is always those individuals who won’t take out the time to learn about the issues surrounding them. The reason why he wants more power to the people is that it may give large amounts of power to an institution as oppose to the average person. It’s a way to make sure that government does not have too much power.
Lippman has a similar ideology as does Aristotle that trust should be put in the hands of those with expertise because the average person will not necessarily have the adequate facts rather more of an imagination as to how they perceive things.
In my opinion, John Dowey has my vote. Although it may not be 100 percent effective and you will have people basing their knowledge on stereotypes, but it gives a platform for everyone to voice their opinions. Like factions, if you have a diverse group of people not one group will override the other. As big and diverse as the United States the voice of individuals wouldn’t be greater or lesser than others. Like Aristotle, he has a very optimistic philosophy. In a sense, I agree more to Dowey’s ideologies for the simple fact that while reading Creative Democracy, I was able to relate to the other readings.
Hello Rosy, I agree with you regarding all four Aristotle: A Wise Leader, James Madison: A well Build System, Walter Lippmann: Expert Knowledge, John Dewey: Active and Informed Citizen, have great ideas for great deliberation. In my opinion, all of them circle each other and from one come to the other, to provide deliberation. Great Leader can lead others and show them the way or the opposite. A well build system will keep the leader in check and give opportunity to citizens to have a voice in deliberations. The Expert knowledge is needed so others can see and learn what is important for deliberation. Finally the Active and Informed Citizens will make the world go forward.
Hello jh167859,
I too agree that each of the four positions when combined, is capable creating a deliberative environment that caters to all views. We can argue on the merits of each positions but the point of democracy is that THE PEOPLE constitute the body politic of the land. And because THE PEOPLE are constituents of the land, they ought to be given equal and unhindered opportunities to contribute to matters that affects all, whether they be sophisticated in appearance or in levels of their faulty.
In a general sense, deliberation is the act of exchanging ideas about issues through considering different perspectives. Effective deliberation provides people with a way in which to execute the process of discussion through adopting and exchanging different viewpoints in a debate-like setting. An example of this can be a parliamentary structure of a government such as Italy. Throughout history, different theories have emerged which concern the most effective ways to apply effective deliberation. The most notable of these are (1) Wise Leadership, which was suggested by Aristotle (2) Sound Procedures or a well-built system as mentioned by James Madison, (3) Expert Knowledge as stipulated by Walter Lippman, or (4) An Informed public as explained by John Dewey. In my opinion, the most effective guarantee of effective deliberation is through applying John Dewey’s theory of having active and informed citizens participate in democratic issues for effective deliberation.
John Dewey was a philosopher, educational theorist and psychologist who emphasized the role of education on democracy (Stobie, 2016). His theory of having Active and Informed citizens makes the most sense to me because accountability can only be placed on policymakers if the public is knowledgeable , well-informed and is able to take action that limits dictatorship tendencies. When the public knows about its rights and is able to actively participate in the political arena, this allows for more diverse discussions that are attuned to the needs of the people as opposed to solely the ruling class. This active participation by the public, who is well-versed and informed of their rights and their responsibilities, ensures that all individuals are able to participate in discussions or have representatives that are able to participate in those discussions for them.
The informed and active participation of the public in the world of politics will also minimize corruption. The reason why this particular method is better in terms of effective deliberation is that although the other theories may be adequate, they are missing important features that can topple the democratic information exchange process. In terms of Aristotle’s “strong leader” it is possible but not guaranteed to have a positive effect on effect of deliberation because absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no guarantee that a strong leader will not turn into a tyrant, and will in turn this stop others from giving their own opinions or differing ones during important discussions. As for the second method, which is sound procedures, it depends on which system or body has set these procedures in place. Again, if it has nothing to do with the public, there is no guarantee that this is not going to be a corrupt form of executing decisions made after effective deliberation. The third method is Walter Lippman’s expert knowledge, which stipulates that “manufacturing consent” and having experts play a role in helping form public opinion is the best way to execute effective deliberation. I do not believe that this is so because not all individuals are influenced by the “pictures in their heads” as he mentioned in his book Public Opinion (1922). Therefore, although each method has its positive aspects, the best method remains in allowing an active and informed public take precedence in executing effective deliberation as it is a way that guarantees that all individuals are satisfied and that there is a better sense of democracy that is applied upon doing so.
References
Stobie, T. (2016, August 9). Reflections on John Dewey’s ‘Democracy and Education’. Retrieved from http://blog.cie.org.uk/reflections-on-the-100th-year-anniversary-of-john-deweys-democracy-and-education/
Aristotle: A wise Leader
James Madison: A well- Build System
Walter Lippmann: Expert Knowledge
John Dewey: Active and Informed Citizens
In my opinion a little of all four is needed for effective deliberation. A wise Leader would know how to start and which way to navigate deliberations. A well build system as Madison states needs to be in order to have great deliberation so the leader will not abuse his power and the public opinions are expressed through different political parties or organizations. The Experts are needed to correct stereotypes, to make sure other people who have no appropriate knowledge regarding issues are informed. Here we move to active and informed citizens. We see or have seen all over Dictators who use peoples illiteracy, lack of knowledge, unawareness for their own agendas. If I have to choose one I would definitely go with Active and Informed Citizens. I think without the active and informed citizens we would not have many things today. People who want change, who want to come out of oppression, who want to help others to have fulfilling lives, were informed and made sure others had necessary knowledge. People like Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. , are few who made change, and made deliberation know around the world.
Hybrid Theory: As I was going through the readings my biggest thought was that with our perfect, imperfect system of: checks and balances, expert opinions, “wise” leadership, and fully informed citizens is it really working?
It’s easy to point out how the deliberation in each area is tragically flawed. For wise leadership the dependence their government has on them values their life and creates inequality. For Checks and Balances, Madison forewarned in his faction theory how that can break down. For expert leadership, we’re already in an era of too much information, as politicians report their statistics that help their campaign. Fully informed citizens never even get a chance to deliberate as Gastil presented in context of Dewey’s thoughts and ideas.
I didn’t want to play that tragic game of who is the biggest victim making our deliberation flawed. That type of game is unproductive. I would take a hybrid of two these theories combining informed citizens with checks and balances as my effective deliberation.
I‘ve always marveled at the size of our government. The city, state, and federal levels all have their own administrative functions and mechanisms. How do you get all of these knobs and lights to connect? For effective deliberation there has to be a way in which systems can check on another. In 12 Angry Men, their (speaking +voting) rules= not guilty. I think that with a better informed public, special interests groups would be checked and balanced. The best thing that checks and balances does is that it distributes power among its responsibilities. The best thing that good citizens do is the good part. They are contributing to the good of the deliberation.
So I’ll take my hybrid theory I couldn’t pick just one.
My take on this is several days late, and definitely after Professor Hoffman has confessed that in reality all 4 different takes on effective deliberation are the best way to go. Many on the forum have sided with John Dewey and rightfully so but I respectfully disagree with all the folks who have sided with Dewey.
In his speech, “Creative Democracy” Dewey states “Democracy is a way personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgement and action if proper conditions are furnished” and unfortunately I have no such faith in people to be able to carry this out. Although noble and well intentioned, Dewey does come across as naive to me.
I believe Madison was correct in believing that a strong system was necessary in order to achieve a guarantee of effective deliberation. Although incorrect in his belief that multiple factions would cancel each other out, Madison was correct in having a distrust of people and making sure that a just and fair system was in place to make sure everyone played fair.
In my perspective Aristotle, Lippmann,Madison and Dewey all have a little bit of what will make the best deliberation policy. No one of them have the full or prefect answer as to what is good deliberation.
With Aristotle, having a wise leader to move deliberation in the “right” way to benefit the good of the public is very important. The wise leader knowing what points to follow and use is very helpful in deliberationso.
Lippmann, having experts make recommendations when there is a problem is also good for deliberation. But experts should not have the final say. Experience to me is even better than experts testimonies. Experience with experts recommendations will add up making the equation balancedue.
Madison, who believe in a strong system to ensure that everything is double checked has a point to some extent. The checks and balances are needed to ensure public interest prevails over personal gain.
Dewey, who believes the society needs to be educated so they can come up with the best conclusion to a problem has what most people consider tge right idea more than the other three; but we still need all the good ideas from the others input to make a good deliberation even better.
In conclusion a little bit of everyone is the ideal deliberation process.
There is none that is more important than the other in guaranteeing effective deliberation. Imagine deliberation with everything except boundaries, processes or procedures—whether formal or informal—it would be chaotic. What is the value of deliberation without someone who has, rightly or wrongly, expert knowledge—so that you can choose to object, agree, or “know” something, based on the “facts” of the day. If deliberation required an informed public then there is no place for the individual who thinks differently; and wise leadership? Character, which Aristotle relates to as wise leadership, is unnecessary for effective deliberation to occur.
Many of the factors of deliberation as outlined particularly by Aristotle, Lippmann and Dewey, lean heavily on the individual and what that person brings to the conversation. Do they bring ethics, expert knowledge or a curiosity and deeper understanding of the importance and context of the matter being deliberated? Madison outlines the platform and rules that govern the space within which deliberation takes place. The question is, can all of these be present and effective deliberation not take place? Depending on what side of the deliberation one is on, there are myriad examples of the failure of deliberation even with all the aforementioned factors present, such as General Colin Powell before the UN Security Council discussing invading Iraq.
One truth is unassailable however, people- stereotypical and counter-stereotypical folks, make the difference in deliberation. Effective deliberation depends on the objective and the connection or motivation of the two individuals related to that objective. Therefore any one or combination of positions by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann or Dewey guarantees effective deliberation.