Doxa and deliberation

Hayward, Clarissa Rile

doi:10.1080/1369823042000235958

Cited by 46 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bourdieusian scholars have drawn attention to a major problem with the Theory of Communicative Action . Where Habermas contends that the grounds for communicative reason lie in the rules internal to discourse, Bourdieu argues, based on empirical observation, that domination is ‘linguistically inscribed’ and secured (at least partly) in the subconscious (Hayward, 2004, p. 5). Nick Crossley argues that ‘communication is always systematically distorted since the possibility of undistorted communication, if that means communication not structured through socially shaped habitus, is nil’ (Crossley, 2004, p. 108) 4 .…”

Section: The Challenge Of Network Democratisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nick Crossley argues that ‘communication is always systematically distorted since the possibility of undistorted communication, if that means communication not structured through socially shaped habitus, is nil’ (Crossley, 2004, p. 108) 4 . Bourdieu's habitus calls into question the redemptive qualities of deliberative reasoning among radically unequal interlocutors (Fraser, 1990; Hayward, 2004). How can deliberation recognise and overcome inequalities embodied in cultural capital (Crossley, 2004) if cultural capital is inscribed in language and embedded in the subconscious common sense?…”

Section: The Challenge Of Network Democratisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or would it be thwarted; if not by the hegemony of managerialism then by power inscribed in language and culture? Does Bourdieu exaggerate the subconscious determination of cultural practice and underplay individual autonomy and our capacity for conscious reflection (Hayward, 2004, pp. 12–3)?…”

Section: The Challenge Of Network Democratisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion

Davies

2007

Political Studies

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenge of enhancing the "democratic anchorage" of partnerships has become a central concern in policy studies. Radical reform proposals designed to level the deliberative playing field include community veto powers and the appointment of neutral arbiters. Welcome as they would be, however, it is questionable whether such reforms would overcome power asymmetries in the partnership arena. A study of the local politics of social inclusion in two UK cities, Dundee and Hull, suggests that managerialism, driven by national governments, is eroding the prospects for partnership democratisation. But more significantly for the reformist agenda, public managers and community activists think in incompatible frames about the role of partnerships and in ways that are not understood by the other party. Non-communication undermines the prospects for an equitable deliberative consensus. Insights from Bourdieu suggest that even in more favourable deliberative environments than those in Dundee and Hull, subtle manifestations of power in culture, discourse and bearing would undermine the potential for a Habermasian consensus between radically unequal actors. In a radical departure from the network governance paradigm, it is therefore argued that empowerment may depend less on enhanced network democracy than on strong independent community organisation capable of acting separately and coercively against governing institutions and elites -an exit-action strategy. These preliminary conclusions point to a substantial research agenda on the politics of the state-civil society nexus.2

show abstract

Section: The Challenge Of Network Democratisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Challenge Of Network Democratisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion

Davies

2007

Political Studies

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the years, the policy research community has equipped us with a number of normative and idealistic frameworks to seek out incremental changefrom deliberative democracy through collaborative planning to social learning. Alongside this, analysis from critical social science perspectives have offered rich explanations of how power and hegemony distort communication in democratic processes (Crossley 2004;Hayward 2004;Ojha et al 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Policy Learning be Catalyzed? Ban Chautari Experiment in Nepal's Forestry Sector

Ojha

Paudel²,

Khatri³

et al. 2013

J. Forest & Livelihood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

:Over the past several years, technocratic approaches to forest policy have been challenged and more collaborative processes have been advocated. While these shifts have offered significant space for citizen engagement at local level -such as through community based forest management in Nepal's case -these have not taken roots at higher levels of policy making, especially at the level of formulating or revising legislations, or setting up a protected area. In this paper we critically review a collaborative experiment on catalyzing deliberative policy learning process in Nepal's forest sector. We examine how and to what extent such experimentation could overcome seven identified challenges to forest policy deliberation in Nepal. The experiment, which we named as Ban Chautari, involved three key strategies -conducting diagnostic research, empowering local communities to articulate their voices in deliberative forums, and then acting collaboratively across diverse institutional groups. Our examination of the Ban Chautari process focused around three research questions: a) How can policy learning be catalyzed?; b) How can actors with differentiated capacity and resources collaborate in the policy process?; and c) How can research processes be re-organized so as to contribute effectively to constantly shifting policy agendas and rapidly changing contexts? The experience of Ban Chautari has some good news to share with the wider public policy research community that conditions for collaborative policy learning is possible. And at the same time, it has generated evidence that warns the advocates of participatory and collaborative policy processes on the more subtle, and fundamental challenges that surround any attempts to foster collaborative learning.

show abstract

“…But at least since Dewey (1925), scholars have noted the strong potential for technical policy expertise to undermine democratic participation. Democratic theorists have argued that this tension becomes particularly acute in deliberative contexts either because some participants have far greater ability than others to use technical expertise as a persuasive resource, or because technical proficiency marks some participants as having higher status than others, or because technical discourse itself is value-laden (Young 2000, Fung and Wright 2001, Gaventa and Cornwall 2001, Dzur 2004, Hayward 2004). The question arises whether non-expert participants in neighborhood councils can use expert knowledge effectively either in forming consensus or taking sides in conflict.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grassroots Expertise at a New York City Community Board

Waters¹

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democratic theory predicts that the use of expert knowledge can conflict with democratic participation in policy-making, but neighborhood-level participatory bodies in U.S. cities frequently deploy quantitative analysis and other forms of expertise as they engage land use processes. An ethnographic approach permits us to investigate the fine-grained human interactions around one such potentially problematic instance. Participatory observation and in-depth interviewing of board members and staff from a New York City community board in a low-income neighborhood show that they can partially overcome the challenge of expertise by developing their own technical capacity. Expertise enhances board members’ influence, but members nevertheless encounter difficulties, including the problem of simultaneously performing advisory and representative roles.

show abstract

Doxa and deliberation

Cited by 46 publications

References 36 publications

The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion

The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion

Can Policy Learning be Catalyzed? Ban Chautari Experiment in Nepal's Forestry Sector

Grassroots Expertise at a New York City Community Board

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About