Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:02:06.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Epistemology and the Politics of Omission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Robert B. Talisse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary liberal democracy employs a conception of legitimacy according to which political decisions and institutions must be at least in principle justifiable to all citizens. This conception of legitimacy is difficult to satisfy when citizens are deeply divided at the level of fundamental moral, religious, and philosophical commitments. Many have followed the later Rawls in holding that where a reasonable pluralism of such commitments persists, political justification must eschew appeal to any controversial moral, religious, or philosophical premises. In this way, the Rawlsian account of public political justification involves a politics of omission, where citizens are expected to bracket off their most fundamental commitments and seek justifications that draw only from uncontroversial premises. This politics of omission is necessary, Rawls argues, for political stability. But there is good social epistemic evidence for the view that the politics of omission encourages insularity among like-minded groups, and that this insularity in turn generates extremism. So omission is likely to lead to instability, not stability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 107 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

Ackerly, Brooke. 2000. Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce. 1989. “Why Dialogue?” Journal of Philosophy, 86:16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce and Fishkin, James. 2004. Deliberation Day. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1980. “The A Priori of the Communication Community and the Foundations of Ethics.” In Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. “Towards a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Benhabib, , ed. Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The Claims of Culture. Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1998. “The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 6.4:400–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William, eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1996. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Bohman, and Rehg, , eds.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Bohman, and Rehg, , eds.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1998. “Democracy and Liberty.” In Elster, , ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1988. “Foundations of Liberal Equality.” In Darwall, Stephen, ed. Equal Freedom (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Elster, Jon, ed. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David. 1998. “The Insularity of the Reasonable.” Ethics 108: 252–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley. 1999. “Mutual Respect as a Device of Exclusion.” In Macedo, , ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere.” In Calhoun, Craig, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29(4): 371–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Samuel, ed. 1999. John Rawls: Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 1999. “Diversity, Toleration, and Deliberative Democracy.” In Macedo, , ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William. 2002. Liberal Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Robert and Christopher Wolfe. 2000. “Introduction.” In Natural Law and Public Reason (Washington, Georgetown University Press).Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 2003. Reflective Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, John. 2001. Two Faces of Liberalism. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1970. “On Systematically Distorted Communication.” Inquiry 13:205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 1989. “Should Political Philosophy be Done Without Metaphysics?” Ethics 99:791–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2002. “The Crippled Epistemology of Extremism.” In Breton, Albert, ed. Political Extremism and Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen. 1995. “Gag Rules or the Politics of Omission.” In Holmes, Stephen, Passions and Constraint. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack and Johnson, James. 1994. “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy.” Political Theory 22:277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1996. The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 2003. “Public Reason.” In Freeman, Samuel, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lefort, Claude. 1988. Democracy and Political Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen, ed. 1999. Deliberative Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15(3):338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Carol. 2003. Killing for Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1987. “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 16:215–40.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 2003. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1985. “Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical.” In Freeman, , ed.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. Paperback, ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1998. “Commonweal Interview with John Rawls.” In Freeman, , ed.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” In Freeman, , ed.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1990. “Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence.” In Ethics in the Public Domain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Reidy, David A. 2000. “Rawls's Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough.” Res Publica 6:49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingence, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lynn. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25.3: 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel. 2001. Boundaries and Allegiances. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1976. The Concept of the Political. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Stout, Jeffrey. 2004. Democracy and Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2001a. Designing Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2001b. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2003a. “The Law of Group Polarization.” In Fishkin, James and Laslett, Peter, eds. Debating Deliberative Democracy. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2003b. Why Societies Need Dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, Carol. 2002. The New White Nationalism in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, Carol and Nieli, Russ, eds. 2003. Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaine, Lucas. 2003. “A Liberalism of Conscience.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11.4: 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talisse, Robert. 2002. “Two-Faced Liberalism.” Critical Review 14.4: 441–458.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. Liberal Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1998. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1997. “The Role of Religion in Decision and Discussion of Political Issues.” In Religion in the Public Square. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefiled.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2003. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” In Fishkin, James and Laslett, Peter, eds. Debating Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar