“…The problem for animal rights advocates, Humphrey and Stears claim, is that their campaign stock and trade is cost levying, that is, the imposition of financial or emotional costs through the use of a range of putatively ‘non‐deliberative’ direct action tactics designed to ‘compel assent’ rather than rationally convince the interlocutor . Humphrey and Stears (, p. 402) argue that deliberative theory requires animal rights advocates to present their views in socially acceptable ways and refrain from the very campaigning tactics that for them constitute the ‘essence of democratic politics’.…”
Section: Recent Debate Over Animal Rights Advocacy and Deliberative Dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is very difficult – or very costly, one might say – for citizens to alter established patterns of behaviour or to question deeply held cognitive styles. If recent political and social sciences have taught us anything, it is that such ‘stickiness’ is a central characteristic of the politics of modern democratic societies (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 407).…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Without recourse to non‐deliberative campaigning techniques, Humphrey and Stears argue (, p. 407), proponents of non‐mainstream views, like animal rights advocates, would not be able to overcome the effects of habituation and ‘kick start the process of reconsideration’. It is important to note, however, that Humphrey and Stears do not expressly identify their view as a token of the deliberative school; instead, they claim that their theory ought to be seen as a part of a ‘decent theory of democracy’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 417). But it is fair to say that for Humphrey and Stears, in line with deliberative theory, political equality is at least in part constituted by citizens having a chance to inform public deliberation and decision making.…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At one point they endorse ‘disruption’, a non‐deliberative campaign strategy aimed at ‘obstructing the routine activities of opponents, bystanders and authorities’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 407), as something that proponents of deliberative democracy ought to allow on equality grounds. The rationale of disruption is that ‘disruptive activities place issues on the agenda that might not otherwise be discussed and then give way to a reasonable discussion of the themes’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 414). But threats and property destruction would obviously cause considerable disruption to the day‐to‐day activities of businesses and organisations.…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
In this article I offer a response to recent debate over direct action animal advocacy and legitimate public deliberation in liberal democracies. Mathew Humphrey and Marc Stears and Stephen D'Arcy have argued that liberal democracies ought to tolerate direct action animal advocacy in the interests of promoting the right of proponents of nonmainstream views to inform public deliberation and decision making. I argue that the precise scope of Humphrey and Stears' and D'Arcy's analyses is unclear and important parts of their theory are under-described. I highlight the logical and practical implications of their claim that direct action is useful as a means of overcoming the stifling influence of conventional wisdom. I conclude by arguing that tolerance for direct action advocacy ought not to extend to controversial animal rights campaigning tactics such as making threats, using incendiary devices and damaging property.
“…The problem for animal rights advocates, Humphrey and Stears claim, is that their campaign stock and trade is cost levying, that is, the imposition of financial or emotional costs through the use of a range of putatively ‘non‐deliberative’ direct action tactics designed to ‘compel assent’ rather than rationally convince the interlocutor . Humphrey and Stears (, p. 402) argue that deliberative theory requires animal rights advocates to present their views in socially acceptable ways and refrain from the very campaigning tactics that for them constitute the ‘essence of democratic politics’.…”
Section: Recent Debate Over Animal Rights Advocacy and Deliberative Dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is very difficult – or very costly, one might say – for citizens to alter established patterns of behaviour or to question deeply held cognitive styles. If recent political and social sciences have taught us anything, it is that such ‘stickiness’ is a central characteristic of the politics of modern democratic societies (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 407).…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Without recourse to non‐deliberative campaigning techniques, Humphrey and Stears argue (, p. 407), proponents of non‐mainstream views, like animal rights advocates, would not be able to overcome the effects of habituation and ‘kick start the process of reconsideration’. It is important to note, however, that Humphrey and Stears do not expressly identify their view as a token of the deliberative school; instead, they claim that their theory ought to be seen as a part of a ‘decent theory of democracy’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 417). But it is fair to say that for Humphrey and Stears, in line with deliberative theory, political equality is at least in part constituted by citizens having a chance to inform public deliberation and decision making.…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At one point they endorse ‘disruption’, a non‐deliberative campaign strategy aimed at ‘obstructing the routine activities of opponents, bystanders and authorities’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 407), as something that proponents of deliberative democracy ought to allow on equality grounds. The rationale of disruption is that ‘disruptive activities place issues on the agenda that might not otherwise be discussed and then give way to a reasonable discussion of the themes’ (Humphrey and Stears, , p. 414). But threats and property destruction would obviously cause considerable disruption to the day‐to‐day activities of businesses and organisations.…”
Section: Animal Rights and Public Deliberationmentioning
In this article I offer a response to recent debate over direct action animal advocacy and legitimate public deliberation in liberal democracies. Mathew Humphrey and Marc Stears and Stephen D'Arcy have argued that liberal democracies ought to tolerate direct action animal advocacy in the interests of promoting the right of proponents of nonmainstream views to inform public deliberation and decision making. I argue that the precise scope of Humphrey and Stears' and D'Arcy's analyses is unclear and important parts of their theory are under-described. I highlight the logical and practical implications of their claim that direct action is useful as a means of overcoming the stifling influence of conventional wisdom. I conclude by arguing that tolerance for direct action advocacy ought not to extend to controversial animal rights campaigning tactics such as making threats, using incendiary devices and damaging property.
“…However, a significant portion of activists are unwilling to compromise and dilute their moral purity believing that its adversaries are unresponsive to mere argumentation. As a result, many of the animal rights movement's adversarial and conflictual tactics are, it is argued, incompatible with the consensual and accommodation behaviour required by deliberative democracy (Humphrey and Stears, 2006).…”
Section: Deliberative Democracy and Animal Rights Activismmentioning
Deliberative democracy has been castigated by those who regard it as exclusive, elitist, and unrealistic. As a result, it is suggested, deliberative arenas will merely reproduce inequalities, advantaging the already powerful extolling mainstream world views excluding the interests of the less powerful. Moreover, the tactics employed by those excluded social movements seeking to right an injustice are typically those which are incompatible with the key characteristics of deliberatively democracy. This paper seeks to examine the case against deliberative democracy through the prism of animal rights. It will be argued that the critique of deliberative democracy is largely misplaced because it underestimates the rationalistic basis of animal rights philosophy, misunderstands the aspirational character of deliberative theory, mistakenly attributes problems that are not restricted to deliberation but result from interest group politics in general, and ignores the educative potential of deliberation. It is further argued that this debate about the apparent incompatibility between the ideals of deliberative democracy and non-deliberative activism disguises the potential that deliberative democracy has for advocates of animal rights and, by extension, other social movements too.
2Deliberative democracy began life as a radical critique of the conventional, aggregativebased, theory and practice of democracy, which, it is argued, is too open to abuse by those elites with money and the capacity to manipulate public opinion. However, deliberative democracy has, in turn, been castigated by those who regard it as exclusive, elitist and unrealistic, because of its failure to take into account a range of structural inequalities existing within contemporary liberal democracies, and its failure to recognise that there are severe psychological constraints on the capacity of individuals to fulfil the role required of them. As a result, it is suggested, deliberative arenas will merely reproduce these inequalities, advantaging the already powerful extolling mainstream world views excluding the interests of the less powerful and those expounding alternative worldviews. Moreover, the tactics employed by those excluded social movements seeking to right an injustice are typically those -involving various forms of protest and direct action -which are incompatible with the key characteristics of deliberatively democracy and are therefore deemed to be illegitimate by deliberative theorists.One social movement to which this critique of deliberative democracy has been applied is that concerned with advocating animal rights. This article seeks to evaluate the case against deliberative democracy through the prism of this one social movement and one issue, although it is emphasised that the arguments provided have a wider resonance beyond the particular issue of animal rights. Thus, it will seek to defend deliberative democracy against the charge that it is incompatible with animal rights activism, and by so doing seeks to defend deliberat...
This entry gives an overview of current debates about civil disobedience as a practice of political contestation that is located between legal protest, on the one hand, and more radical, for example revolutionary, forms of opposition, on the other. It examines the definition, justification, and role of civil disobedience, especially from the point of view of democratic theory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
