Deliberative Ecologies: A Relational Critique of Deliberative Systems

• In Event: New Theoretical and Conceptual Developments in Democratic Innovations

Abstract

The concept of deliberative systems has become a key element in the theories of deliberative democracy (Mansbridge, 1999; Hendriks, 2006; Dryzek, 2010; Parkinson and Mansbridge, 2012; Chambers, 2017; Neblo, 2015; Steiner et al, 2017; Curato and Böker, 2016; Bächtiger and Parkinson, 2019; Elstub et al, 2019). It has had an enormous influence, helping deliberative democrats to advance a comprehensive perspective about discursive flows in democratic societies.

In broad terms, ‘Deliberative Democracy is grounded in an ideal in which people come together, on the basis of equal status and mutual respect, to discuss the political issues they face and, on the basis of those discussions, decide on the policies that will then affect their lives’ (Bächtiger et al., 2018: 2). The concept has influenced both investigations about micro discursive interactions and macro processes in the public sphere. The systemic approach sought to connect these trends of research, providing a framework for the comprehension of the connections between different discursive arenas that may nurture public debates (Elstub, 2019). Due to its relevance and undeniable contributions, the concept thrived with scarce friction. Some concerns were raised, and caveats were pointed out (Mansbridge et al., 2012; Papadopoulos, 2012; Owen and Smith, 2015; Mendonça, 2016; Curato et al, 2019; Zgiep, 2019; Asenbaum, 2022), but the notion was widely accepted and adopted, reshaping research agendas and democratic innovations.

This article aims at advocating a move beyond the systemic approach. We argue that the notion of deliberative ecology can deliver the necessary conceptual elements that deliberative democrats seek in deliberative systems without some problems they overlook. One may acknowledge that public discussions can (and should) happen in a variety of arenas spread over space and time without adopting a systemic perspective. An ecological approach can grasp this idea while also avoiding conceptual and practical limitations inherent to the premises of structural functionalism that pervades, in one way or another, the idea of deliberative systems.

Drawing from theories of complexity and from pragmatism, an ecological approach considers social entities according to the webs of interdependence that simultaneously support and constrain them at a given moment in time. Since it understands those relational webs as fluid and complex, it does not think of actors and political arenas through fixed, universal, and aprioristic categories, roles, and functions. Such an approach values the dynamic and unpredictable features of reality, refusing the quest to organize it in ways that would enable an organicist understanding of the world. It also pays attention to the contradictions and tensions pervading a certain ecology, privileging a practice-based understanding of political action. In doing so, this ecological approach recognizes the multiple, recursive, and changing nature of relationships grounding the vivid and non-teleological unfolding of beings, spaces, and temporalities.

To advocate the differences and advantages of this perspective in comparison to the notion of deliberative systems, we organize this article in two parts. In the first one, we briefly reconstruct the notion of deliberative systems and deal with some criticisms raised against it, adding a broader argument regarding the risks inherent to the idea of systems. In the second part of the article, we advance six dimensions of comparison, aimed at showing the different angles enabled by an ecological perspective.

In a nutshell, we claim that even if deliberative democrats often use the notion of system quite loosely and do not fully embrace a mechanistic approach, the risks of falling into linear and functionalist comprehensions of political processes run across the broader comprehension of how a system should look and becomes embedded in some of the terms and concepts employed. The way deliberative systems conceive of the relationships between different discursive arenas tends to simplify and linearize complex and recursive interconnections. Deliberative democrats frequently look for transmission processes and for the functions or roles of different arenas, without acknowledging the open-ended dynamic of discursive flows. This has thwarted a proper conceptualization, for instance, of forms or relationships between discursive arenas that obstruct deliberation. An ecological approach to deliberation has the advantage of conceptualizing an ever-changing web of relations of interdependency, which connects diverse entities that are relevant to a public discussion or that hinder its enactment. We are not dealing with fully distinguishable, although interdependent, parts performing diverse functions to promote the goals of the system (Mansbridge et al, 2012: 10). Instead of a cooperation between arenas, one should seek to understand various strands of adaptive movements in a complex whole.

Authors

• Ricardo Fabrino Mendonca, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

• Lucas Veloso, Federal University of Minas Gerais

• Bruno Magalhães, Fundação João Pinheiro

• Filipe Motta, UFMG