Meta-deliberation: everyday acts of critical reflection in deliberative systems

Abstract

The term ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to processes of addressing problems with the way that conversations about shared concerns – our ordinary deliberations – proceed. This article discusses the distinction between meta-deliberation and ordinary deliberation and examines three questions raised by previous arguments about meta-deliberation: (1) what kinds of communication should count as meta-deliberation, (2) does meta-deliberation always lead to reflective understanding and improvements in practices of deliberation, and (3) why would deliberative systems need meta-deliberation? Consistent with the systemic perspective on deliberation, this article suggests an inclusive view of which acts and sites may contribute to processes of meta-deliberation: it argues that meta-deliberation faces the same potential problems as ordinary deliberation, such as unequal power relations and narrow perspectives, and therefore requires careful examination; but when meta-deliberation works, it provides societies with reflective capacity, which helps them locate systemic weaknesses. The article concludes by discussing how further studies can help make meta-deliberation more inclusive in order to serve system-level critical reflection.

Violations of basic deliberative norms: The systemic turn and problems of inclusion

“…Similarly, other case studies of citizen deliberation have highlighted how they affect broader structures of the public sphere that also affect the institutions (Ercan, 2015; Holdo, 2019, 2018a). Deliberative institutions represent ideals concretely and incentivize and inspire actions that correspond to the ideal.…”

“…The most apt expression of reflective capacity may not always be as concrete as meta-deliberative minipublics, however. Like Habermas’ ‘public sphere’ is a decentralized vision of inclusive citizen deliberation, an inclusive and reflective deliberative system will need to be open to various forms of participation – some of which may be formalized, while others will remain forms of ‘everyday talk’ (Mansbridge, 1999; Holdo, 2019) – and various ways in which different parts of the system may be connected. To increase a system’s reflective capacity under such circumstances may also require solutions that are not easily articulated in terms of a specific strategy or institutional quick fix, but is more concerned with a general, less concrete, cultivation of an ethos of curiosity and respect for views articulated in norm-violating ways (see Connolly, 1995, 2002, for a more general treatment of the topic of democratic ethos).…”

“…Rather, without strong institutions, deliberative systems would be unsustainable, because the concrete manifestations of ‘deliberation’ that make the concept meaningful would be lost. The institutional perspective helps us recognize the importance of actual deliberation, and thereby reconnects the systemic perspective to the idea that deliberation refers to certain forms of talk that are normatively better, not because they are always functionally more important to the system but because they are intrinsically valuable parts of a deliberative system (see also Holdo, 2019; Kuyper, 2017). The institutional perspective thus reconnects the systemic approach to the idea that individual institutions of deliberation should aim to meet deliberative criteria.…”

Why Inequalities Persist in Public Deliberation: Five Mechanisms of Marginalization

“…The more resourceful actors may dominate discussions or choose to ignore outcomes of deliberation if their views are challenged. Such inequalities thus easily make deliberation biased in favor of powerful actors (Holdo, 2019).…”

“…These ends are not achieved when public discourses are structured in ways that marginalize significant parts of the population in discussions on topics that affect them considerably. As an antidote to this problem, theorists have advocated “meta-deliberation,” that is, processes of collective reflection about problems of equal treatment and inclusion in public deliberation (Bohman, 2000; Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011; Fraser, 2003; Holdo, 2019; Mansbridge et al, 2012) and of comparing the advantages and disadvantages of deliberative forms of decision-making to other forms (Landwehr, 2015; Thompson, 2008). However, meta-deliberation is not necessarily more inclusive or rational than any other kind of deliberation and therefore risks reproducing the same systematic distortions as the processes it is meant to address (Holdo, 2015).…”