Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:33:23.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructive Democratic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John S. Dryzek  and
Jeffrey Berejikian
John S. Dryzek
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Jeffrey Berejikian
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the idea of democracy has never been more universal or more popular, both democratic theory and the empirical study of democratic possibilities are in some disarray. We seek a productive reconnection of these two endeavors with democratic discourse through close attention to the language of democracy as used by ordinary people and political actors. Reconstructive inquiry determines how the individuals who are the potential constituents of any democratic order themselves conceptualize democracy and their own political roles and competences. We deploy an intensive method—Q methodology—for the study of individual characteristics, capabilities, and dispositions in combination with political discourse analysis. Four discourses are discovered in an analysis of selected U.S. subjects: contented republicanism, deferential conservatism, disaffected populism, and private liberalism. These results can be used to relate democratic theory to live possibilities in democratic discourse.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 48 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, C. Fred. 1985. “Is Jurgen Habermas' Reconstructive Science Really Science?” Theory and Society 14:321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. Jr., and Sylvan, David. 1986. “Political Discourse Analysis.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert, Madsen, Richard, Sullivan, William M., Swidler, Ann, and Tipton, Steven M.. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Steven R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Steven R. 1986. “Q Technique and Method: Principles and Procedures.” in New Tools for Social Scientists, ed. Berry, William D. and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret E. 1987. “Republicanism.” In The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, ed. Miller, David. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cnudde, Charles F. 1971. Democracy in the American South. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, Crewe, Ivor M., and Searing, Donald D.. 1991. “The Nature of Citizenship in the United States and Great Britain: Empirical Comments on Theoretical Themes.” Journal of Politics 53:800–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1982. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1988. “The Mismeasure of Political Man.” Journal of Politics 50:705–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John. 1979. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R., and Ziegler, L. Harmon. 1987. The Irony of Democracy. 7th ed. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1966. Division and Cohesion in Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1977. Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frost, Robert. 1973. “The Figure a Poem Makes.” In Robert Frost on Writing, ed. Barry, Elaine. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1986. Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer. 1981. What's Fair. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1991. “Rational Choice as a Reconstructive Theory.” In The Economic Approach to Politics, ed. Monroe, Kristin. New York: Harper–Collins.Google Scholar
Kelman, Steven. 1987. Making Public Policy: A Hopeful View of American Government. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1983. “Diversity and Complexity in American Public Opinion.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 1986. “Introducing and Developing Q as a Feminist Methodology.” In Feminist Social Psychology, ed. Wilkinson, Sue. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1962. Political Ideology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1986. “Market Justice, Political Justice.” American Political Science Review 80:383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review, 53:69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, Bruce, and Thomas, Dan. 1988. Q Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney J., and Petrocik, John R.. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulantzas, Nicos. 1980. State, Power, Socialism. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Prothro, James W., and Grigg, Charles M.. 1960. “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement.” Journal of Politics 22:276–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1973. The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict, and Democracy in Britain and Italy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reinarman, Craig. 1987. American States of Mind: Political Beliefs and Behavior among Private and Public Workers. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ricci, David M. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1962. Democratic Theory. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Seidel, Gill. 1985. “Political Discourse Analysis.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. van Dijk, Teun A.. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1973. “The Empirical Theorists of Democracy and Their Critics: A Plague on Both Their Houses.” Political Theory 1:287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainton Rogers, Rex, and Rogers, Wendy Stainton. 1988. “Deconstructing ‘Addiction.’” Presented at the annual meeting of the Social Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Stephenson, William. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Fried, Amy, Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, and Dietz, Mary. 1990. “Mixing Methods: A Multi-stage Strategy for Studying Patriotism and Citizen Participation.” University of Minnesota. Typescript.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A., ed. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Zvesper, John. 1987. “Liberalism.” In The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, ed. Miller, David. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.