Journal article

Publication year: 2016

Pages: 476-486

Journal: Philosophy and Social Criticism

Volume number: 42

Issue number: 4-5

ISSN: 0191-4537

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623831

Publisher: SAGE Publications

Abstract: 
The deliberative model of politics has recently been criticized for not being very well equipped to conceptualize current developments such as the misinterpretation of political difference, the digital turn, and public protests. A first critique is that this model assumes a conception of public spheres that is too idealistic. A second objection is that it misconceives the relationship between empirical reality and normativity. Third, it is assumed that deliberative democracy offers an antiquated notion of a shared we' of political actors and because of this, fourth, fails to take into consideration the digital turn', in particular the de-personalizing effects of social media that have led to a rapid decline of the public sphere. And a fifth critique states that the deliberative model ignores the fact that politics is not, and especially protests and revolutions are not, seminar-like debates but spontaneous, chaotic and sometimes violent expressions. I will argue that all of these critiques fall short in a variety of ways. A deliberative model of politics allows us to address the tension between the ideal and the real, the old media' and the so-called digitalization of public spheres as well as peaceful discourse and violent uprisings. Especially the concept of communicative power, a notion also used by Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas, reveals the potentials for future participation in digital spaces and public places.

Harvard Citation style: Kreide, R. (2016) Digital spaces, public places and communicative power: In defense of deliberative democracy, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 42(4-5), pp. 476-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623831

APA Citation style: Kreide, R. (2016). Digital spaces, public places and communicative power: In defense of deliberative democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism. 42(4-5), 476-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623831