首页> 外文学位 >Evaluating deliberative democracy: Comparing Habermas' discourse ethic and evaluations of consensus process in residential cooperatives.
【24h】

Evaluating deliberative democracy: Comparing Habermas' discourse ethic and evaluations of consensus process in residential cooperatives.

机译:评估协商民主:比​​较哈贝马斯的话语伦理和对住宅合作社共识过程的评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

How do deliberators reason together on what is best? Planners, policy analysts and community developers should know how to recognize the validity of participatory deliberations claimed to give groups voice in policy decisions. Policy analyses have lost power in the face of postmodern critiques of objectivity. Practical policy analyses require more than objective validity for they express results of what Jurgen Habermas refers to as normative rationality. This study followed John Forester's recommended research agenda for rigorous empirical analyses of policy process deliberations using Jurgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. Three successful residential communities were identified with organizational and institutional characteristics meeting Habermas' criteria for organizational support of democratic discourse. Each was organized as a cooperative over twenty years before. All required formal processes for consensus on policy decisions. This research investigated their analytic criteria for process evaluation as they applied them in response to formal open-ended interview questions. Democratic deliberation necessarily elicits subjective and intersubjective assertions of validity in addition to objective assertions of fact and each type of validity is evaluated with different types of criteria. Detailed characteristics of Habermasian validity and discourse ethics are illustrated in discourse analyses of selected issues deliberated in each community. Concepts of Habermasian validity, their development and empirical application are also described. In conclusion, procedural rules for policy deliberation may protect otherwise marginal voices if all four types of validity claims are allowed to be challenged, reformulated, and revalidated. In this way, these communities' social experiments inform similar efforts of those working for greater citizen participation and civic capacity in urban and regional policy and planning. These communities are similarly involved with the design and development of social and institutionalized practices for participatory democracy. This cross-fertilization of theory and practice has the potential to offer a significant benefit to each.
机译:审议者如何共同根据最佳做法进行推理?计划者,政策分析人员和社区开发人员应该知道如何认识到参与式讨论的有效性,这些讨论声称可以使团体在政策决策中发表意见。面对后现代的客观性批评,政策分析已经失去了力量。实际的政策分析所需要的不仅仅是客观的有效性,因为它们表达了尤尔根·哈贝马斯所说的规范理性的结果。这项研究遵循了约翰·佛瑞斯特(John Forester)推荐的研究议程,该计划使用尤尔根·哈贝马斯(Jurgen Habermas)的“交往行为理论”对政策过程进行了严格的实证分析。确定了三个成功的居民社区,这些社区具有组织和机构特征,符合哈贝马斯的民主话语组织支持标准。每个人都在20年前成立了合作社。所有这些都需要正式的过程以就政策决定达成共识。这项研究调查了他们用于过程评估的分析标准,因为他们将其应用于正式的开放式面试问题。除了客观的事实断言外,民主审议还必然引起主观和主体间断言的断言,每种类型的断言都用不同类型的标准进行评估。哈伯马斯效度和话语伦理学的详细特征在每个社区讨论的选定问题的话语分析中得到了说明。还描述了哈贝马斯有效性的概念,其发展和经验应用。总之,如果允许对四种有效性声明进行质疑,重新制定和重新验证,则用于政策审议的程序规则可能会保护边缘声音。这样,这些社区的社会实验为那些致力于在城市和区域政策与规划中提高公民参与度和公民能力的人们做出了类似的努力。这些社区同样参与参与式民主的社会和制度化实践的设计和开发。理论和实践的这种相互融合有可能为每个领域带来重大利益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号