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.
61 thoughts on “Historical Perspectives on Deliberation and Democracy”
Comments are closed.
Aristotle’s idea is that of a “wise leader” . He believes that the wise leader should have a deep knowledge of what is going in order to rule the society. Although, I do agree with his perception of effective deliberation in the matter, I do not think it is necessarily the right way to go about it. In making this point about wise leader, Aristotle fails to incorporate that if we were to take into account human beings in today’s society, every one comes with biases, prejudices and are shaped by their own experience. Therefore putting all the responsibility on just one’s man hand can be problematic. His analyses are too ideals, not practical and then the decisions would be made by that sole individual and it wouldn’t allow proper use of effective deliberation, it would mostly feel like a dictatorship as less people are inclined to express their opinions.
According to Lippmann, it’s best to rely on expert knowledge. He thinks it’s wiser to do so because as he states “the pictures inside people’s heads do not automatically correspond with the world outside.” Thus, he argues that relying to on experts is more effective as it is difficult to rely on public’s opinion. It seems to me that Lippman’s argument on expert knowledge can be counter argued with the same reasoning that I’ve done with Aristotle. There are obvious similarities between their ways of seeing effective deliberation. One must realized that it is important to remain unbiased in any event when using deliberation.
Dewey stands for a well-informed public through education. He is convinced that having not only educated but also engaged voters is what is best for a society and to have effective deliberation. I do agree with Dewey that having informed citizens is key model towards a prosperous society, it would be good for the population in the sense that decision making does not rely solely on a wise leader or “ experts”. It gives room for everyone to contribute their experiences and practical knowledge in a well educated, not necessarily objective, but rational way.
Madison does not trust that the public can deliberate effectively. Thus, his views/ models for effective deliberation contradicts that of Dewey. He suggests that there should be a system to maintain order and this how he introduced a system of checks and balance who, according to him, will provide a more accurate decision making. By using this system, he argues that effective deliberation is made through a set of sound procedures and regulations. Consequently, he doesn’t allow the individual to take an integral part from the process; he wants to minimize bias, prejudices and other subjective variables as much as possible.
Jennifer, when reading Aristotle’s thoughts on Deliberation, I also thought that too much power would be concentrated in the hands of one person. Even though Aristotle believed that a Wise Leader would best guarantee that deliberation would have a good outcome, the idea presents a great danger of dictatorship. The society where all the decisions made by one man will never be democratic since people cannot voice their opinion or express themselves. It would not be considered deliberation if it is only one-man’s decision without communication, even if the man is wise.
Anna I agree with you, Aristotle puts a lot of power in one person, all the while explaining the laundry list of qualities a good deliberator must poses. He explains that the ultimate goal is happiness. However, each member of society has a different view of happiness. Ultimately Aristotle feels that a leader must be able to persuade their followers and somehow it will lead to happiness because the followers will come to a realization. I just don’t think wise leadership is the most important guarantee of an effective deliberator. Who is to say another person is not wiser? The qualities Aristotle lists seem overreaching and not always necessary, he even includes luck as a quality.
I agree that there are more important factors to effective deliberation, other than a wise leader. However, I think a wise leader is necessary for effective deliberation in order to keep a discussion organized and free. The purpose of a wise leader is to guarantee that the deliberative process is progressing fairly which includes making sure that everyone has voiced their opinions and that everyone is listening to each other.
I also agree that Aristotle’s description of a wise leader is quite extreme. Good fortune does not depict being wise. Again, different perspectives and values depict who we see as wise. Therefore, we may have a wise leader but may there may be some who do not believe that he/she is wise.
Although we all probably agree about Aristotle’s early view on deliberation, I would say that many of our current representatives in the House of Representatives, Senate, and other bodies of government such as the Supreme Court and even some recent Presidents behave in the way Aristotle describes. By that I mean that they see themselves as the voice of a city, a state, a country, etc.
Additionally, a passive and misinformed people allow this officials to behave like that unchecked.
Would anybody agree with this statement?
Federico, I completely agree. I think a lot of the governments around the world model after Aristotle’s wise man description. On top of that many governments restrict access to education to keep their public from becoming educated and demanding more. Deliberating to a passive and misinformed audience allows many of the current presidents around the world to stay in power.
A perfect example of such is the Mexican government. Access and the right to education is only for a selected few. The president is very closely connected to Mexico’s largest broadcasting company which promotes more soap operas than opportunities to get ahead. It is common to see striving officials give away televisions, food, and daily necessities to the misinformed public in exchange for votes. Being uneducated and in extreme necessity to get by, the pubic allows themselves to be bought and Mexico’s wealthy continue getting ridiculously wealthy and its poor starving for leftovers.
I also agree with your point. Wise leadership have been used by our system to run the government. House of representatives and senators use the discussion method to come up with any decision of any policy. I also agree that a passive an misinformed system leads this politicians to abuse their power. For example, in Bangladesh, politicians usually practice of baseness in the media where the ruling party only shows their good deeds in the media. They misinformed their bad actions to the people which eventually leads to heavy damage in the Bangladesh economy.
I agree Jeniffer, to some degree his theory of a wise leader is effective. We should want someone with knowledge but he is giving one person too much power. At the end of the day, I wouldn’t want anyone to decide what is best for me without me having a final say.
Sound deliberation within public affairs is possible but also problematic. The assigned readings touched on crucial elements that can affect public opinion, notably, wise leadership, smart procedures, expert knowledge, and an engaged and informed public. These factors are democratic only if they function simultaneously. If effective deliberation only guarantees one of these items, democracy is compromised. Therefore, although I believe that each element needs to be present for democracy to operate properly, expert knowledge is of the greatest importance because it brings about a transparent social environment that combats corruption and deception.
In Public Opinion, William Lippman situates his reader within their political circumstance by stating: “The world that we have to deal with politically is out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.” This summary may come off as simple, but I would argue that it is aphoristic in its size and scope. Here Lippman introduces an understanding of public affair that highlights an inevitable censoring carried out by politicians in our globalized, media-driven society. That is to say that those with power get to choose what information the general public can access.
This gap between what the public can access and what is actually happening diminishes the system of democracy. John Dewey reasons that “democracy is a way of life controlled by a working faith in the possibilities of human nature”, but this stance puts an immense amount of trust on people. It is difficult for citizens to maintain their family and work life, let alone keep their community or state afloat. Moreover, tyranny, monopoly, and corruption have been and currently are incredibly apparent in society. These behaviors undoubtedly complicate a truly democratic system, and puts into question Dewey’s theory.
As for James Madison, checks and balances are necessary for effective deliberation. I think Madison and Lippman’s stance on democracy work well together because both call for the free flow of information that either augments or diminishes the state of affairs of the citizenry. Furthermore, Madison’s theory of checks and balances highlights that wise leadership works better when smart procedures are employed. That is, corruption crumbles when expert knowledge is implemented in a governing body.
Finally, Aristotle, the veteran political philosopher, developed sound fundamental guidelines that are still very much in use today. He declared that finances and foreign affairs were of upmost significance when building and growing a political society. Once again, knowledge is at the forefront for a strong deliberation to be realized. Aristotle believed that persuasive deliberators had to understand what made a society prosperous before they could be in a position to change it.
Joe, I agree with you that all four perspectives on deliberation should be implied simultaneously in order to have a good outcome. I found the views of John Daley on human nature and democracy the most idealistic, and I favor them the most. Educated, informed citizens should be involved in public affairs and decision-making. Society full of mindful, moral-upholding citizens who are willing to co-operate and communicate describes true democracy. However, this is not the world we live in; it requires extensive checks and balances, as well as an expert knowledge in order to prevent tyranny and corruption.
Joe – interesting point about Aristotle and how is stressing of topics like finances and foreign affairs is actually about how leaders really need to be well versed in the key topics of society themselves to create effective deliberation. I actually think this dovetails nicely with Lippman, someone you didn’t seem as keen on. Its practically impossible for Aristotle’s leaders to be experts on everything, but in our modern world we have think tanks and other outside expert groups that attempt to fill the gaps. While they do have their political leanings, in the end they create a diverse array of reports and are probably the modern equivalent of Lippman’s theories. Aristotle and Lippman, in this case, clearly fit well together.
Hi Dough- You make a great point about the need for leaders. You have me questioning whether I interpreted Dewey’s theory correctly. I was under the impression that by informed public he meant that everyone has a right to know what was transpiring and would be free to voice their opinion, but ultimately and elected body to represent them would present a final decision. This isn’t the case?
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. As I will say in a moment in my full post I think that all of these ideas together may make for a better unified approach to deliberation which I think is what you are getting at.
The four historical perspectives on deliberation presented by distinctive thinkers at different times of human history are fundamentally different in their origin, and in my opinion, should be united since they are aiming to reach the same outcome. The society where Aristotle’s Wise Leader presides over Madison’s Well-Built government that works with Lippmann’s Independent Experts and where Dewey’s Active and Informed Citizens participating in the political life of this society would be considered the ideal one.
All four thinkers could agree that society ought to have some control over the deliberative process, whether it would be one person, a group of knowledgeable people or the entire population. The parallel among these thoughts is that in order to best guarantee that deliberation will have a good outcome is to have the knowledge over the subject. The most obvious advocate for equipping people with knowledge and facts of four thinkers is Lippmann. He claims that public opinion is shaped by a pattern of stereotypes – “the picture in our heads”. Lippmann thinks that politics cannot work successfully without an independent, expert organization that will make the unseen facts intelligible to those who have to make the decisions.
On the contrary to Lippmann, Dewey considers knowledge of conditions as they are the only solid ground for communication and sharing that expands experience. Dewey believes in human nature and the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished. Faith in democracy is all one with faith in experience and education. For him, the task of deliberation is a “creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.”
Anna, interesting to read that you think all four methods of deliberation could work together. I wonder if its practical, since each seems to empower someone different. For example, if the whole public was informed and engaged, how much power would a leader really need? Do we even need a leader? Maybe a leader would be needed more for operational than deliberative purposes, but definitely something Dewey in particular never really got into. If the whole public is informed and wide deliberation occurs, what is the role of our leaders?
To add on to that Doug, I think Walter Lippmann’s views on public opinion would clash with John Dewey. While John Dewey did believe that an informed and engaged public was necessary for productive deliberation, Lippmann argues that experts are needed as he explains it is both, “…intolerable and unworkable fiction that each of us must acquire a competent opinion about all public affairs”. Additionally, Lippmann explains that our reliance on the media/news isn’t reliable, the news outlets would need to be organized by experts if it is to be a true distribution channel for public opinion.
I like your take on the readings, Anna. Highlighting Lippmann’s theory about” the picture in our heads” is necessary in understanding the power of politicians and the press. Both of these parties have an outstanding capability to improve or hinder society. This can be recognized when Lippmann details a comical unraveling of information that takes place in the U.S. Senate. The rapid shifting of focus in this scene shows how these institutions can consciously and unconsciously distract the public from pertinent information regarding politics. Individuals have to be careful when absorbing these “pictures”; otherwise, they are susceptible to misinformation or, in certain cases, propaganda.
Hanna, you make such a good point. All four approaches are trying to reach the same outcome. The wise leader, the balanced government, the independent experts and the activate and informed citizenry all aim at creating and ensuring a progressive well balanced society. The concepts of these four thinkers each have their shortcoming and a strategic combination of their perspectives is the best possible way of achieving the goal they all seek.
In theory, Dewey’s perspective on an informed public seems to be the most logical way to have effective deliberation. Rather than relying on wise leaders or small group of experts, in the most idealistic sense it would be wonderful if each and every person had the facts necessary so society as a whole could deliberate and identify the best outcome for a given situation. Practically though, it’s just not possible. People are too quick to believe the first rumor or report they here, rather than taking the time to dig at what’s right. Without a public willing to seek out correct information, effective deliberation is impossible.
Therefore, Madison’s sound procedures are best for society. Society is composed of a number of different interests – companies with concerns about how to operate and make money, right down to a neighborhood seeking to improve safety. Each is out to strengthen its positions, gain support and will act selfishly to get what it wants. Working in communications for a company myself, I know that most aren’t going to lie, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do whatever it takes to earn as much resources and support as possible. Therefore, in this reality, we need sound procedures that protect all, and give every side the same opportunity to deliberate. Otherwise, those who are most organized will flood society with facts or experts. Only fair procedures can rein them in.
An informed public is essential with regards to successful deliberation because ignorance limits perception. In my career in government, you realize that many of the problems the public has with government can/should be addressed by the public not more bureaucracy or legislation. Educating and empowering the community to come together to push out criminals, work with police, and/or support their local schools is the greatest burden a leader has to bear. Without an informed public, deliberation meant to brainstorm solutions or a plan of action quickly becomes a blame game with parties fighting amongst themselves and never understanding another person’s perspective. Cops blame the public, teachers blame parents, businesses blame consumers…
I agree with Amir an informed public is essential on today’s society. Educating citizens and having a community participatory based approach is what is needed to create balance and to avoid chaos. Once all parties are well informed, deliberation can be more effective as all parties would have taken part in the decision making process . However, as Doug mentioned, the public would have to seek “correct information”. Yet, can’t it be subjective what one defines as correct information ?
Hi Amir,
I completely agree with you we have to motivate the will of the people and provide them with the expert knowledge needed to make informed decisions. We have to have wise leaders inform the public on facts rather than opinion gossip and other trivial notions. Educating the masses is a vital key in successful deliberation. However not the only one.
I think all four perspective are very important in order to effectively deliberate a speech. Aristotle argues that we need wise leaders to make our decisions. He mentions that wise leaders creates a discussion among the group of people. In that discussion, there is option for everyone to come up with the best solution for any crisis. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men juror 8 used the method of wise leadership where he made counter discussion with other jurors which eventually led them to come up to a decision where the boy proved no guilty.
James Madison, argues that there should have checks and balances in government in order to prevent abusing of power. This checks and balances helps not to make poor decisions for any branch of the government.
Lippman argued that expertise should only make the decision. They are aware of any issues in their filed. People might be biased to any issue and cannot make the poor decisions. However, expertise are able to make the correct decision without being prejudice or bias on that issue. Lastly, John Dewey think that citizens need to be informed about any decisions. They are effective and have the capability to make the right decisions using deliberations.
Although wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge and informed citizen are important for the deliberation, I think wise leadership are most important. When I used to work at the Bangladesh Consulate this summer, I saw that how consulate general use the discussion method with other workers to come up with the right decisions for any issues. Although this process might take long time than usual, it was confirmed that everyone use their opinions to form the decisions, therefore, it would not be creating any problems in the future.
hey Nabila, you make a good point by utilizing an example of the movie to argue that wise leadership might be the better choice for effective deliberation. I was under the impression that using wise leadership meant the power might be concentrate over a minority than a majority. Using that perspective , it make sense . But I would also add there had to be a consensus, an unanimous vote for this to happen. Juror 8 didn’t only use the skills of that of a wise leader but also his expertise and education to have everyone come up with a more informed approach based on their experiences yet on less prejudices and subjectivity.
I’m glad you brought up the movie. Twelve Angry Men illustrated several of the principles from our reading — Juror 8 was Aristotle’s wise man; Madison’s firm structures were evident and required all jurors to vote and a chance to speak; and each juror came from a unique personal experience and they relied on the examination of facts as Lippmann observes. The jurors had the faith in the system that Dewey puts forth and as a deliberating body remain true to the process.
Nabila, I think you made some great points. In my own response I did not put enough emphasis on the fact that a good leader is important in deliberation and I’m glad you did. Do you think that a leader should have restrictions put on their power and decision making? I think if all leaders used the process that you witnessed at the consulate there would not be any issues. However, that is not always the case. Thoughts?
Hi Nabila,
I too agree Twelve Angry Men depicted all 4 points of effective deliberation. Juror #1 could be seen as depicting sound procedures, first coming up with the order in which to be seated and eventually speak in numerical order ensuring each person had a chance to voice their opinions inclusive of Madison’s view on checks and balances. No one person had complete control over the other jurors. Juror #8 represented wise leadership, a vital ingredient to successful deliberation; he was able to calmly create the conversation of reasonable doubt among the other jurors while informing the public. Informing the public based off wise leadership with the help of expert knowledge to vote in a republic of checks and balances is the key to deliberation.
Hi Nabila,
I agree that all four perspectives are important for effective deliberation. In 12 Angry Men, The “wise leader” Aristotle depicts was the architect. He was able to use the power of persuasion to show there is reasonable doubt in the facts presented in the case. That said, leadership plays a crucial role in the deliberation process.
In a perfect world, I would completely agree with Dewey that an informed public is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation. Dewey concludes Creative Democracy-The Task Before Us by saying “the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.” However, I think that people’s opinions are driven by far too many factors that are harmful to positive deliberation. As we saw in the film Twelve Angry Men, it is hard to gather a group of people without bias and stereotypes playing a large role in opinions and decisions. As Madison states in The Federalist No. 10, “by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Additionally, the idea of active and informed citizens is an ideal situation but all members of society need to want to be active and informed. I am not sure that is something that is achievable in our society today.
Based on my analysis of all of the historical perspectives studied, I think the one that would be most effective is James Madison’s push for structure and a well-built system. The best way to guarantee that leaders, experts, or citizens aren’t abusing power is putting a structure in place for decision-making and deliberation. I also think that with this structure, all of the historian’s preferences can be included in deliberation. Both experts and citizens in this scenario can hold the leaders accountable to an extent through a well thought out structure.
Keri, I agree with your interpretation on Dewey’s version of creative democracy. He recognizes that there is a variety of opinions within society but his theory is ideal. Everyone in society is not willing to hear the opinion of others. There are many who believe that their opinion is correct regardless of what someone else has to say.
Keri – I completely agree with you. It’s very easy to look at this task we’re assigned and state what we think would be most effective, but our answers are rarely going to be based in the realistic society we live in.
Our society has utilized the checks and balances system for centuries and it seems to have been working. As in the old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Keri, I agree with you, only a perfect world will the public be an informed one. I think it is human natural to base our perspective of things based on our individual experiences and prejudices. I see an informed public as the result of a great deliberation. I think that if the deliberator is wise and well informed on the topic at hand, an informed public will result from it. However, like Dewey states, each member will have her/his personally molded perspective of the “facts”
John Dewey places emphasis on the individual’s experience as a part of the educational process. In doing so, citizens are able to communicate and share beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Although these views may vary from person to person, it creates a space where there is freedom of expression, assembly and communication (Dewey, 231). Unfortunately, the “informed public” that Dewey mentions assumes that citizens are informed through exchanging experiences and knowledge, which is not always the case. Nevertheless, an informed public is the best option for effective deliberation. The “wise leader” Aristotle depicts place too much power in one individual. The ultimate goal of happiness cannot be projected through one person. In fact, this form of deliberation is dangerous if the selected individual uses the power of persuasion out of self interest and not for the greater good. Similarly, Lippmann relies on experts knowledge to guide society. Although the power has shifted from one person to a group, the power is still centralized. That said, one can understand Madison’s argument to have a political system with checks and balances. Unfortunately, this form of deliberation focuses primarily on the political system, not the people, in the decision making process. Effective deliberation requires individuals to share experiences that challenge their own bias, beliefs and attitudes. The differences in experience help determine if our policies in place are effective. That said, the active and informed citizens of society have the power to challenge ideologies and rectify them. This form of deliberation Dewey discusses grants individuals the right to participate in the decision making process. As a result, the outcome will better reflect the citizens of society.
Nickiesha, I agree that individuals participating in the decision making process will provide an outcome that better reflects our society. However, I do not know if this can be achieved without a structure. Our structure right now may not be working to give the power to the people, but I don’t think that Dewey’s method will necessarily fix the problem either. Maybe a combination of the two would work best for a good outcome? Do you think there is a way to keep a system of checks and balances but provide the people with more of a voice?
Hi Keri,
I was debating between Madison and Dewey. I do agree checks and balances are crucial to ensure individuals do not gain too much power. A combination of the two perspective would provide structure in the political system and give the citizens their own voice. In fact, all four perspectives would probably be the best option.
Nickiesha, I definitely understand your thought process and can see why you would say that Dewey’s method of informed citizens would be a great form of deliberation. However, it is important to note that a system as such can easily fall apart because of the expected notion that the citizens have to be well informed. This leaves room to wonder then what will be the outcome when citizens are not informed. I feel like if there can be a chance that this system might easily fall apart, then are we willing to gamble on that ideology. Just a thought!
I find Lippmann’s observations to be the most compelling. The awareness that all participants in deliberation come from a unique point of view serves any deliberation well. Aristotle’s “wise man” has his own experience to draw from and drive decisions. And each player in Madison’s structure of checks and balances is “certain that it speaks for the common interest” as Lippmann states. Dewey’s democracy relies on a universal education that will more likely ensure a shared experience for voters. If any joint conclusion is to result, being conscious that everyone has a different point of view and striving to understand those opposite is a start. I also like Lippmann’s reliance on experts to provide facts to counter these various opinions and move the discussion in a productive direction.
Maureen – your analysis is very interesting but I wonder if a society where all people are informed and on equal footing, what is the incentive for any individual to listen to any other? If each person is equally informed and there is no system or structure in place where another’s opinion is forced to be heard, I think we’d end up in a perpetual state of cyclical arguments.
Really great point, Yaffa. I’d like to focus on the statement you made regarding “what is the incentive for any individual to listen to an other”. In our current political environment, many individuals are apolitical. They are more focused on their personal lives and their careers than current events. And rightly so! There’s only so much time, and dedicating it to political affairs is difficult and time-consuming, especially when one has multiple jobs, a family, or interests divorced from politics.
Politics isn’t integral for everyone in our society. The specialization of jobs creates an environment where someone doesn’t need to know about political deliberations. A plastics engineer can live without knowing anything about foreign affairs. And a more unsettling example, a journalist covering the New York City Council doesn’t need to be informed about the economy in California.
The most effective guarantee of effective deliberation would be John Dewey’s theory of an informed public. Dewey makes the claim, that for deliberation to be effective the public has to be informed. However, an informed public consists of individuals who use their knowledge as well as their experiences to create effective deliberation. An individual’s experience generates their own attitudes and perspectives which can be used in a deliberative process. Emphasizing on the individual’s experience creates diversity in the deliberative process because everyone has different experiences; which allows us to build a better understanding of life, as we can collaborate according to each other’s experience.
For example, in the film Twelve Angry Men. One of the jurors utilized his own experience of growing up in the slums to bring insight to the way in which the knife was used to kill the father. The minor detail of how to use a knife does not stem from knowledge which we can learn from a book. It is learned through experience. Hence, the exchange of experiences and knowledge allows for an informed public.
However, this theory comes with the assumption that all individuals are willing to listen and comprehend the ideas of those with adverse opinions. We know for a fact that they are some who don’t wish to be active citizens in society. These individuals hamper the theory of an informed public, since they would rather focus on their opinions and disregard others.
Arisotle’s belief that the ultimate goal of deliberation is happiness, present a valid point. We deliberate to reach not just an ending but an understanding of the opinion which are adverse to ours. However, his belief that the key to effective deliberation lacks consideration for the abuse of power. While having a wise leader allows for organization, it becomes problematic to place so much power in the hands of one individual. While a leader may be wise, it is important to remember that they are still human and human nature can cause and abuse of power an individual to promote self-interest rather than public interest. An abuse of power inspired James Madison’s system of checks and balances. Madison’s theory prevents one group from abusing the power of another which seems to be efficient. However, he lacks focus on the individual and protection of an individual’s thoughts. Lippman argues that we should use the opinion of experts to correct the stereotypes that often influence policy makers and the public.
In my opinion, for truly effective deliberation among a group, all four types of deliberation – wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, and informed public – are necessary. Wise leadership, as seen in 12 Angry Men, can help to bring new information and/or new ideas to a group which may help to sway the opinion and deliberation from one way to another. Sound procedures, as stated by Madison, in conjunction with expert knowledge, would help to alleviate any one individual from commanding all the attention in an attempt at deliberation. Finally, it is not possible to have an semblance of an effective deliberation when the individuals having the conversation are ignorant to the basic facts at hand. Therefore, having an informed public paves the way for any type of deliberation.
I do believe that, while the foundation of any effective form of deliberation should be based in an informed public, without the other three components, how is a group of people – some with varying or extremely opposite opinions – supposed to come together towards one conclusion? With the assistance of the three additional components, I believe that it would be easier for any group, in any situation, in any society, to mutually agree and deliberate in a most-effective manner.
I wonder, if Madison, Aristotle, Dewey and Lippman sat together and deliberated, if they would agree that all four methods of deliberation are equally important.
Hi Yaffa,
I will comment here in response to your last paragraph and to expand what I just posted.
I don’t see effective deliberation taking place if one of the four characteristics is missing. However, a lesser quality of deliberation would probably be possible if there is first a sound structure that promotes participation. The group may not reach the best solution possible, but undoubtedly they will reach a common one. If the outcome is a failure, then the structure of rules would allow for subsequent tries until they get it right.
If a specific group is facing life or death challenges, then the wise leadership, an informed public and expert knowledge come to play their role.
The reason I do not say structure is the single most important thing is that without wise leadership, one would never be able to create that strong structure that promotes the best levels of participation.
I find it difficult choose between the four perspectives. I do like the idea of an engaged and informed public, however I agree with Lippmann’s view that it is impracticable to believe that everyone can come to a meaningful well thought-out public opinion on every public affairs issue.
He argues that we have limited access to facts and that even if all facts existed we are limited by both time the ever growing complexity of our society. Lippmann believes we would be better suited if we had experts guiding and making as he states, “unseen facts intelligible for our decision makers”.
However issues may arise as, who are these experts and what exactly qualifies a person to be an expert? Would science then be the source experts derive their facts from? It is very easy to have experts who present facts that are supportive of a specific person, or groups interest selected as their advisor dismissing other experts. We would then need a strong structure with sound procedures to shield us from such corruption.
If I had to choose an approach for the best possible deliberation I would prefer a blended approach, where wise leadership serves more of an operational purpose while under review of sound procedures. Experts would inform the public on facts from which the public would ultimately make decisions. This blended approach may have weaknesses as well but given the supplied perspectives it seems to me to be a fair democratic approach to deliberating.
I really liked your blended approach of deliberation. For the deliberation, four of them have been practiced in everyday life. Wise leadership, checks and balance, expert knowledge and informed public- all are need to run the deliberation in an organization. However, I think sometimes we need to use one approach in order to make decision. For example, at my work place, we cannot informed every data to the public. Sometimes, only expert knowledge are effective, sometimes wise leadership make the best decision. Therefore, I think we should make the choice about what deliberation process we should use in specific purposes.
I completely agree with your conclusion that all of the methods listed combined would make an ideal approach to deliberation. I like how you defined how each method would serve to benefit the other and how well they can work together.
The problem will Lippman’s Dewey’s and Aristotle’s theories is that they can all be easily flawed and that’s why I chose Madison’s method. I believe Madison’s method is a nice combination of wise leadership, expert information and procedures.
I do not believe it is possible to select a single one of these elements as the most important one. In order to guarantee effective deliberation a democracy benefits from having a balanced presence of all of them. The early United States of America was privileged to have the Founding Fathers as its wise leaders. Furthermore, it had a considerably literate voter population who for the most part enjoyed the needed freedom of expression required for effective deliberation, and it had the backbone of the rule of Law to reinforce political participation and representation. Additionally, in today’s complex and globalized societies the value of expert knowledge continues to increase as problems that seem impossible to solve – global warming, fair international trade, wealth inequality and others – require an answer from citizens, cities, nations, corporations, etc.
Good point. The elements collaborate well together and balance out the weaknesses of each principle.
I believe that the most effective deliberation occurs with wise leadership and expert knowledge. As oppose to Madison, sound procedures like a governing system or institution, I see as a way of filtering or restricting what can and cannot be said. Censorship of opinions should be protected against in an effective deliberation setting to be inclusive of various opinions and points of view. If the deliberator is wise and expert on the topic at hand, an informed public can developed. Therefore, an informed public I see more of a result from an effective deliberator rather than a quality needed for effective deliberation.
In order to be an effective deliberator, I believe the person must be wise on the topic s/he is speaking on but also possess a level of experience with the topic. Take for example a social science academic conference. There may be experts on the topic X exposing their research on a particular group of people and their findings. However, most of the time they lack the experience of what it is to be that particular group who live and breathe first-hand experience. More specifically take for example professors who study the undocumented population. The experts can attest to the difficulties and experiences of those who are undocumented from an outside perspective, however, they will never really be able to attest to what it means to be undocumented—the fear, the struggle, the psychological well-being, etc.—since they are not personality experiencing it.
Sticking with the undocumented example let us turn to Donald Trump. Trump is campaigning all over the country with a message of hate for the undocumented population. He is rallying on ridiculous consequences for undocumented based on hate and racism rather than on facts, as a great deliberator should. He is misinforming his followers and is unable to provide a concrete plan of how he will accomplish what he is promoting and is failing to mention and acknowledge the consequences of his plan would have for the country as a whole. Unlike an effective deliberator, Trump is failing to produce an informed public and is instead inciting hate and fear for immigration and Latinos amongst his followers.
Taking your first statement, not haveing a system (congress for example) in place, but relying on a wise leader and knowledge, would you give an arguably despotic regime a pass (say Cuba, or Columbia for example) a pass as being effective for its people. For example, Cuba has an education system that is amazing, trains extremely well prepared doctors and education is free as long as you want before you enter the workforce, and they have a strong, arguably wise dictator for a leader. It is arguable that he has done good things for society at large, but he also imprisons political opponents and has caused a lot of misery. That country lacks a governmental body that represents the people, and while ours is messy, Cuba does meet your initial definition, as I read it in your first sentence, can we not have the other two and still have a system in place that is to the greatest benefit to the people at large?
In my opinion, all 4 factors are needed to guarantee effective deliberation: wise leadership, sound procedure, expert knowledge and having an informed public. As see in the film 12 Angry men, the juror who remained true to his vote that the child was not guilty, served as the wise leader. He presented arguments that served as food for thought to the other men. From my understanding of Madison’s argument against faction, his idea of checks and balances is necessarily. As he mentioned, the cause of faction cannot be removed, and the relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. Even though a group might share a common interest, the existence of other group with opposing interest is necessary to prevent the majority being dominated by one group. In order words, the check and balance is created because both groups are overseeing each other to prevent complete dominance. Dewey’s theory of an informed citizenry is ultimately the ideal situation and I think works well with Lippman’s theory of expert knowledge should information be passed to all citizens provided by the experts.
Yes, again I agree with this position. I think that all of these components are needed to greater and lesser degrees to the ends of a functional, deliberative, and sound public debate (again assuming a Republican form of governemnt).
If we start with the premise that an in formed (educated) public can digest the deliberation between political leaders and (at least in theory) choose the leaders that are best equipped to run the country we can, I think, unify much of the readings and theory from this week. By way of having an informed public, experts fill the role of lifelong educators, bringing the public to an even level of understanding of the facts (a roll the news media arguably used to fill, though I question if they do anymore).
If we accept that a Republican form of government is best, that is democracy through representative government. Then we will need the elder statesman as a leader, the person who has been there and done that, who knows the in’s and out’s of how things work is a figure who becomes important in the Republican style of government to create the broad brush strokes. But as the Anti-federalists were afraid of, concentrating to much power in one person could (and likely would) end in despotism. Which is where checks and balances come in. Having the congress, a check on both the executive and the judiciary, and a representative of the “hopefully” informed public at least ensures, to some degree, that the will of the people is paramount.
However, I question greatly whether the discourse we have in the public sphere is civil anymore, or even if it was ever meant to be civil. In this muddled form of public conversation, it seems to me that we really not on facts as much as we do on spin, misdirection, and attacks on the standing of the people we are supposed to be engaging in the questions of importance that face the people. To that end, I think, as much as it is a cop-out to some degree, that all of these elements are somewhat important. If the public is not well informed how can they decide on representation; if the government does not have a wise leader at the help, well frankly a lot can go wrong (e.g. 2000 – 2008, snark intended); without experts to educate the public (and the deliberative bodies they elect) how can we expect informed policy; and finally, without strong procedures, checks and balances between the seats of power, how do we protect ourselves from the fringe lunatic elements of society. So in the end, I think that all of these elements are nesissary to some degree or another, but mostly I suppose, as I write this, expert knowledge and and informed public are the first step to ensuring the rest function in a reasonably effective manner.
I agree with Shareny in regards about Donald Trump because wisdom is having the ability to understand people, events and situations. With all these combined, a leader can then apply actions to deliver the best results. It can be said that in today’s society, that the governing forms have changed drastically. We realize that our society is influenced mostly by economic factors without any sort of dept knowledge of the consequences in the later future. Donald Trump is like an egoistic leader. He is taking actions that will only benefit small minorities and themselves. He does not the intelligence to understand what good leadership means.
In my opinion all four factors are needed to guarantee an effective deliberation. Aristotle puts much emphasis on leadership solely upon one person. Though having a wise leader is preferable, a group cooperation creates an effective harmony for society. Good and effective leaders are those who think about the aesthetic implications of their decisions. Being a good leader is one of the toughest things to do. A wise leader has to know what to do, be good with people, be insistent in holding associates accountable for poor performance. However, there are consequences when one person has all the power. If one person has all the power to everything, it creates a toxic society. However, with wise leadership and teammates it can create procedures, expert knowledge and inform the public that is essential to avoid the majority in being conquered. Groups, teams, organizations are formed in order to have each person bring equality and fairness on the table preventing an unbalanced society. We need expert knowledge to know what necessary precautions to take to make a decision. When making a decision, one needs to have a reference. In a democracy, it is dangerous to make decisions without reliable source on how to govern. If one does not know the nature of the world, one cannot innovate. A modern administrative state needs knowledge and procedures to keep the public informed and in balance.
Yes, Elaine I agree with you on this position. The elements collaborate well together and make up for the short comings of each other. All of the components are needed at varying degrees and at difference stages to guarantee a functional, deliberative, informative and sound public debate. All these are needed in today world for a progressive, well balanced and informed society.
I think all of these are important in effective deliberation. You need a wise unbiased leader to organize and unite people in deliberation. Don’t get me wrong every person should be allowed to speak their minds and voice their opinions but when there is no order chaos is inevitable. I believe people need rules to follow and what those rules are is up to a society to decide. A wise leader should be able to carry out the rules established by the people which would be effective in good deliberation. Sound procedures are also a key ingredient to successful deliberation because you need a foundation or format in which would make sense but allow everyone to speak their minds. James Madison’s view on checks and balances is very much accurate if you want to discourage one group/ factions from taking over the whole. This way of thinking was used to prevent the tyrannical government our founding fathers fought against. Informing the public and expert knowledge go hand in hand and are vital tools in deliberation the public needs to be informed in order to make good decisions. In order to inform the public you must provide the public with expert knowledge on a specific topic/ area. People want facts if you give them anything less that you ensuring the public would not make the best decisions. All four parts are essential in great deliberation using only some would create basic unequal deliberation.
Twelve Angry Men used the points described above and although there were some hiccups in the end justice reigned subprime. In electing a wise leader using our current system of checks and balances you must provide the public with information based on the facts or expert knowledge. In the current presidential campaign not all candidates are informing the about where they stand on the issues or providing expert knowledge on a topic which leaves the public to make ill-advised decisions.
I agree with Jennifer in which putting all the responsibility to one person can be a problem. There are several negative characteristics on having an autocratic leader. The negative part about having an autocratic leader is that they may not make the best decision. They lack group input from team members who have knowledge and skills. There can be misunderstanding and communications that can lead the whole society or team down in the long run. When a leader does not trust other people it has no hope of having a successful administration.
The most guaranteed method of effective deliberation would have to be that of James Madison’s checks and balances – which is the system we currently have today in our society. The idea of a Democracy gives “the people” the power (as Dewey mentions), but also makes sure to divide power amongst leaders. Also, Madisons’ method unlike that of Aristotle doesn’t give just one leader power, it gives a lot of leaders power – an example of this can clearly be seen in our constitution. There is the executive, legislative and judicial branch; and the idea is that these branches all have the power to act, and this leads to a desire to a less dictatorial government. In a deliberation, the same practice will give everyone a chance at a thorough decision.
Although I do support the idea of Citizenry, it’s important to acknowledge that these specific methods can easily fail due to human nature characteristics. To give power to the people is a great idea, however factors in society can easily influence the way “people,” come to their judgement. Look at the Republican debate, the idea is that the deliberation method is for republican voters to examine the candidates and come to a decision as to who they want to vote for to represent them. However, seeing as character judgment was heavily portrayed in the first half of the segment, this can easily skew a viewers belief on the character of the candidates. As Dewey himself acknowledges, it will take for the people to be very informed and knowledgeable on the issues at hand, for that ideology to work.
Overall, I do think that a wise leader, procedures, expert knowledge and an informed public are all valuable factors that do overlap and together can form a solid deliberation system.
I believe all four factors are needed at various degrees and level in society for the most efficient advancement. Aristotle position on leadership is very vital as leadership is vital to show strength, power and control. A leader gives society direction, motivates, inspires them and brings clarity. A country can be democratic, have checks and balance and an educated citizenry yet fail to grow and prosper as evident in most developing countries in Asia Africa and South America.
James Madison’s checks and balances ensure that no single government branch or individual can overtake another when making policy decisions, attempting to create a single government entity. The United States is the best example for the practice of checks and balances. The concept of separation of powers is most ideal, as it gives each branch of government its own set of powers (balances) and some of the capabilities that each branch has makes sure that another branch doesn’t abuses its power (checks). Russia is a perfect example of what happens when a country lacks checks and balances in its government. It has a strong leader, its democratic, it has an educated populate but the absence of an effective check and balance system has placed all the power in the hands of Putin and his inner circle.
An Informed Citizenry will benefit from applying both creative and critical thinking in solving the challenges of our society. And democracy will ensure protects the interest of citizens, promotes equality and promotes change by paving the way for changes in the government without having to use any form of violence.
In my opinion all four factors are needed for effective deliberation to prevail.
I believe that Aristotle’s assumptions regarding deliberative discourse that “extraordinary individuals” who possess practical wisdom will produce the greatest good, provides an opportunity for self-interests and biases to prevail if there are no checks and balances by the people. This requirement of “gifted individuals” for deliberation is probably only applicable to small, deliberative bodies like the Supreme Court where it is critical that deliberators must have specific legal knowledge to shape laws and may not include input from the citizenry. However, even with such a body of knowledge-specific individuals, decisions for the common good is not always viewed as such considering the two recent rulings by the Supreme Court which did not include input from the people . There is now concern amongst some that there was judicial imposition on the American citizenry. So, no, I believe Aristotle’s assumption may not work in the governing process of a small or large country.
Comparatively, both Madison and Dewey believed in democracy via the power of the people by way of referendum and providing them with adequate education and information to make informed decision. Both, however, acknowledge that there needs to be some standard of quality amongst deliberators to ensure an informed, thinking electorate. I am inclined to agree with the Madisonian theory because it encourages policy discussion at the legislative level which involves “expert opinion”, but still reaches out to the citizens to participate in the deliberative process so that decisions for “good of all people” can be enacted and citizens do not feel like there is an imposition on their will. Madisonian political theory prevents a president from unilaterally entering into war by requiring congressional approval and input from the people. Also Madison recognized that self-interested factions would develop and collations of apposed interests would always vastly outnumber any faction. He felt that this would force legislators to not think of themselves, but to work toward the good of the country by enacting legislation. This is evidenced in our current deliberative process in Congress. While unusually argumentative and deadlocked over policy, this theory still forces them to work together to seek outcomes that are for the good of our nation.
I do agree with Walter Lippman that sometimes the majority of citizens and legislators can get caught up in the idea of “us” vs. “them” when deliberating policy decisions. However statement such as “distortions in their heads and sever cognitive limitation” is very far fetched. The majority of individuals are quite capable of making informed decisions given the necessary information to participate appropriately in a deliberative process. Quantitative measures such as spreadsheets of costs and benefits are not enough to measure some societal issues; we must also consider qualitative measures as well.
In a country as diverse as the United States, I would argue that all four categories are essential for effective public deliberation. Although there are a multitude of different bodies that constitute our government (as Madison intended) each of these has built in positions of leadership. The presidency is the most obvious of these but it is not the only – the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court and each federal agency require wise leaders to manage them effectively. Yes, there are factions within them to oppose and counter a leader who might abuse the powers of their office, but there is little an agency can do if the upper management of that organization is weak or misguided. The example that comes to mind for me is the famous “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” moment of the post-Katrina presidency of Bush. Michael Brown was in no way qualified to manage FEMA, a federal agency that had, until that time, been one of the most well regarded in the government. An even slightly wiser leader would have been much better suited to handle the needs of the Gulf cities that were devastated in that storm. As for the Lippman/Dewey dichotomy of experts versus the public, both are necessary. For better or worse, today’s media is controlled by a handful of individuals who provide news and information to the entire public. When that power is abused or neglected, the public can easily be misled into making terribly costly decisions. The two examples that come to mind here are the roles of the Gulf of Tonkin attack and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Had the expert decision makers in the press been a bit more skeptical of the government’s claims, many lives and much treasure would have been saved. The public is very aware of the media’s power here and, if the circumstances arise, can decide to veto this power. I believe something like this might now be occurring with the public support of presidential candidate Donald Trump. The more the experts tell us “Trump is bad” the more the public seems to like him. This is a direct backlash against the media, which has long since betrayed many Americans. Fortunately, no one of these categories is the be all end all of American deliberation. When one fails, others can step up in a way that Madison would recognize.