The two political faces of Janus. A proposal for a justification of the relationship between consensus and conflict in deliberative democracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.355865Keywords:
Democracy, Consensus, Conflict, Rational reconstruction, Institutional designAbstract
J. Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy is analysed from the point of view of conflict. Leaving aside the external criticisms that object to the validity claims of this political theory, it is argued that, along with the search for consensus, conflict is also constitutive of this theoretical approach to democracy. This relationship (between consensus and conflict) in deliberative democracy is justified by taking into account not only the reconstructive procedure of the pragmatic presuppositions of argumentative discourse that are inherent to decision-making processes, but also by making explicit the democratic implications of its theoretical approach to institutional organisation, and the consequent interaction between the formal and informal spaces of politics in the rule of law. The explanation and analysis of this connection, which is not recognised by the Frankfurt philosopher, contributes to the theoretical expansion of deliberative democracy without thereby nullifying its conceptual status.
Downloads
References
Apel, K.-O. (1980). Notwendigkeit, Schwierigkeit und Möglichkeit einer philosophischen Begründung der Ethik im Zeitalter der Wissenschaft. En Kanellopoulos (ed.), Feschrifft für K. Tsatsos (pp. 215 – 275). Atenas.
Apel, K.-O. (1999). Zum Verhältnis von Moral, Recht und Demokratie. Eine Stellungnahme zu Habermas’ Rechtsphilosophie aus transzendentalpragmatischer Sicht. En P. Siller & B. Keller (eds.), Rechtsphilosophische Kontroversen der Gegenwart (pp. 27 – 40). Nomos.
Apel, K.-O. (2001). Diskursethik als Ethik der Mit-Verantwortung vor den Sachzwängen der Politik, des Rechts und der Marktwirtschaft. En K.O. Apel & H. Burckhart (Eds.), Prinzip Mitverantwortung. Grundalge für Ethik und Pädagogik (pp. 69-95). Königshausen & Neumann.
Apel, K.-O. (2002). Semiótica trascendental y filosofía primera (G. Lapiedra Gutiérrez, trad.). Síntesis.
Apel, K.-O. (2004). Apel vs. Habermas. Elementos para un debate (N. Smilg, trad.). Comares.
Aragaki, H. (2009). Deliberative Democracy as Dispute Resolution? Conflict, Interests, and Reasons. En Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 24(3), 407-480.
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R., Steiner, J.. (2010). Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, their Blind Spots and Complementarities, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 32-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x
Benhabib, S. (2006). El ser y el otro en la teoría ética contemporánea. Feminismo, comunitarismo y posmodernismo (G. Zadunaisky, trad.). Gedisa.
Blakeley, G. (2014). Conflict and deliberation. En Stephen Elstub y Peter McLaverty (comps.), Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases (pp. 17-33). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748643509-003
Böhler, D. (1985). Rekonstruktive Pragmatik, Von der Bewußtseinsphilosophie zur Kommunikationsreflexion: Neubegründung der praktischen Wissenschaften und Philosophie. Shurkamp.
Böhler, D. (2003). Transzendentalpragmatik und Diskursethik. Elemente und Perspektiven der apelschen Diskursphilosophie, Journal for General Philosopy of Science, 34, 221-249. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JGPS.0000005085.01631.3a
Cohen, J. & Arato, A. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. MIT Press.
Erman, E. (2016). What is ‘critical’ about critical theory?, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 43(3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145371667
Fraser, N. (1990). ¿Qué tiene de crítica la teoría crítica? Habermas y la cuestión del género. En S. Benhabib y D. Cornell (eds.), Teoría feminista y teoría crítica: ensayos sobre la política de género en las sociedades de capitalismo tardío (pp. 49-88). Alfons el Magnanim.
González, J. (2014). Repatriando al desterrado que nunca se marchó ¿Un Habermas conflictivista?, Estudios de Filosofía Práctica e Historia de las Ideas, 16(2), 31–43. http://qellqasqa.com.ar/ojs/index.php/estudios/article/view/71
Habermas, J. (1991). Perfiles filosófico-políticos (M. Jiménez, trad.). Tecnos.
Habermas, J. (1994). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1995). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (Original publicado en 1981). Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1997). ¿Qué significa ‘pragmática universal’? En Teoría de la acción comunicativa. Complementos y estudios previos (pp. 299-368). Cátedra.
Habermas, J. (1999a). La inclusión del otro (J. Arroyo, G. Vilar Roca, trads.). Paidós.
Habermas, J. (1999b). Problemas de legitimación en el capitalismo tardío (J. Etcheverry, trad.). Cátedra.
Habermas, J. (2004). Tiempo de transiciones (R. Agapito Serrano, trad.). Trotta.
Habermas, J. (2009a). „Einleitung“. En J. Habermas, Philosophische Texte (Bd. 4: Politische Theorie) (pp. 9-34). Suhrkamp..
Habermas, J. (2009b). Der demokratische Rechtstaat. Eine paradoxe Verbindung widersprüchlicher Prinzipien? (2001). En J. Habermas, J., Philosophische Texte (Bd. 4: Politische Theorie) (pp. 154-175). Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (2019). Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie (Bd. I-II). Suhrkamp.
Kieffer, M. (2015). Conflict transformation and deliberative democracy: a new approach for interdisciplinary potential. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/19706
Kreide, R. (2019). “The Power of Border Politics: On Migration in and outside Europe”. En R. Kreide &A. Langenohl (eds.), Conceptualizing Power in Dynamics of Securitization. Beyond State and International System (pp. 67-90). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293547
Lafont, C. (2006). Is the Ideal of Deliberative Democracy Coherent? En J.-L. Martí& S.Besson (eds.). Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents (pp. 1-25). Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258249
Landemore, H. (2020). Open democracy. Reinventing popular rule for the 21st century. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10crczs
Lyotard, J.-F. (1990). La condición postmoderna (M. Rato, trad.). Rei.
MacCarthy, T. (1987). La teoría crítica de Jürgen Habermas (M. Jiménez, trad.). Tecnos.
Maliandi, R. (1991). Transformación y síntesis. Almagesto.
Maliandi, R. (1997). Volver a la razón. Biblos.
Maliandi, R. (1998). El papel de la conflictividad en la ampliación de la razón. En R. Maliandi, & M. Cragnolini(comps.), La razón y el minotauro. Sobre la posibilidad de una ampliación de la racionalidad (pp.161-184). Almagesto.
Maliandi, R. (2006). Ética: dilemas y convergencias. Cuestiones éticas de la identidad, la globalización y la tecnología. Biblos.
Manin, B. (2021). Délibération politique et principe du contradictoire. En L. Blondiaux & B. Manin (comps.), Le torunant déliberátif de la démocratie (pp. 117-133). Presses de Sciences Po. https://doi.org/10.3917/scpo.blond.2021.01.0117
Mouffe, Ch. (2003). La paradoja democrática (T. Fernández y E. Eguibar, trad.). Gedisa.
Mouffe, Ch. (2007). En torno a lo político (S. Laclau, trad.). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
O’Flynn, I. (2021). Deliberative Democracy. Polity Press.
Peters, B. (2007). Der Sin von Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp.
Rancière, J. (1996). El desacuerdo. Política y filosofía (H. Pons, trad.). Nueva Visión.
Rancière, J. (2008). Zehn Thesen zur Politik (M. Blankenburg, trad.). Diaphanes.
Rawls, J. (2006). Liberalismo político (S. Madero Báez, trad.) Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Santiago Prono
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
