Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:48:54.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impassioned Democracy: The Roles of Emotion in Deliberative Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

MICHAEL A. NEBLO Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL A. NEBLO [Opens in a new window]
MICHAEL A. NEBLO*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
Michael A. Neblo, Professor of Political Science and (by courtesy) Philosophy, Communication, and Public Policy, Ohio State University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In ordinary language, people often treat emotion as the opposite of reason. Deliberative democrats, however, typically use “reason” in a rather different way. They regard arbitrary power, not emotion, as the opposite of reason. Emotion, then, is not at all contrary to reason. Critics who rely on ordinary language to claim that deliberative democrats denigrate emotion are likely to misconstrue how both reason and emotion are deployed. In fact, most deliberative democrats have always assigned emotion an indispensable role in their theories. That said, emotion’s role in deliberation needs more, and more systematic, elaboration. I identify twelve distinct roles for emotion in deliberative theory and practice, clearing the way for a more fruitful research agenda on the role of emotion in democratic deliberation.

Type
Letter
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 114 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 923 - 927
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

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.)

Footnotes

I thank Jon Kingzette, Eric MacGilvray, Jane Mansbridge, William Minozzi, Leigh Jenco, and three anonymous reviewers for their generous and thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts.

References

Brader, Ted. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing To Emotions.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K. 1985. “Emotion as Lived Experience.” Symbolic Interaction 8 (2): 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. 1972–1985. The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882-1953, vols. 1–37, ed. Boydston, Jo Ann. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1999. “Basic Emotions.” In Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, eds. Dalgleish, T. and Power, M., 45–60. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Engster, Daniel. 2007. The Heart of Justice: Care Ethics and Political Theory. Oxford University Press on Demand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John. 2018. “The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, Kimmo, Herne, Kaisa, and Setälä, Maija. 2017. “Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment.” Scandinavian Political Studies 40 (4): 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F.. 1998. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and Systems: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification.” In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Lenhardt, C. and Nicholsen, S.W., 43–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Mattias. 2009. Indignation and Progress: Foundations of a Critical Theory of Society, trans. Cronin, Ciaran. New York: Oxford University Press, [in preparation].Google Scholar
James, William. 1956. The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, and Human Immortality. Vol. 291. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Jasper, James M. 2011. “Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Genevieve Fuji, Black, Laura W., and Knobloch, Katherine R.. 2017. “Citizens’ Initiative Review Process: Mediating Emotions, Promoting Productive Deliberation.” Policy & Politics 45 (3): 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Martin Luther Jr. (1963) 1992. “Letter from Birmingham jail.” UC Davis Law Review 26 (4):835–851.Google Scholar
Krause, Sharon R. 2011. “Empathy, Democratic Politics, and the Impartial Juror.” Law, Culture and the Humanities 7 (1): 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, Hartz-Karp, Janette, Amengual, Matthew, and Gastil, John. 2006. “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study.” Journal of Public Deliberation 2 (1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and MacKuen, Michael. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morrell, Michael E. 2010. Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, Jean P. 1989. “The Development of Character in Kantian Moral Theory.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 27 (2): 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Brenda L., and Melillo, Linda S.. 2006. “Attitudes toward Battered Women Who Kill: Defendant Typicality and Judgments of Culpability.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 33 (2): 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25 (3): 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarantino, Andrea, and de Sousa, Ronald. 2018. “Emotion.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2018 edition), ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/emotion/.Google Scholar
Scarantino, Andrea. 2017. “Do Emotions Cause Actions, and If So How?” Emotion Review 9 (4): 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slote, Michael. 2007. The Ethics of Care and Empathy. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetlesen, Arne Johan. 1993. Perception, Empathy, and Judgment: An Inquiry into the Preconditions of Moral Performance. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1981. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1985. “Impartiality and the Civic Public: Some Implications of Feminist Critiques of Moral and Political Theory.” Praxis International 5 (4): 381–401.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.