Is impartiality possible or desirable within the conduct of political judgment? Many philosophers and democratic theorists have answered this question with a resounding “no.” This article provides an affirmative answer to this question based upon the empirical study of deliberative democracy within “mini-publics.” Through a reconstruction of the phenomenology of deliberative democracy within groups, this article offers an alternative conception of impartiality that can overcome many of the political and philosophical challenges that have been raised about this quality. “Deliberative impartiality” is a group-mediated orientation born from reflective civic collaborations within deliberative processes that prioritize free, equal, and inclusive communicative participation. This process-dependent form of mutually enacted deliberative impartiality differs from the individual, cognitive “standpoint” model of impartiality that still informs much of the theoretical literature, and it is for this same reason an intriguing and overlooked approach to impartiality that is worthy of empirical and theoretical consideration.
ArendtH (1968) Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books.
2.
ArendtH (1982) Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy (ed. BeinerRonald). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BaierK (1958) The Moral Point of View. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
BarabasJ (2004) How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions. American Political Science Review98 (4): 687–701.
5.
BarberB (1984) Strong Democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
6.
BarkerDWMMcAfeeNMcIvorDW (eds) (2012) Democratizing Deliberation: A Political Theory Anthology. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.
7.
BarryB (1995) Justice as Impartiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BeinerR (1983) Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BenhabibS (1996) Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.67–94.
10.
BickfordS (1996) The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
BohmanJ (1996) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
BohmanJRichardsonH (2009) Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and “Reasons that All Can Accept.”The Journal of Political Philosophy17 (3): 253–274.
13.
BoswellJ (2012) Why and How Narrative Matters in Deliberative Systems. Political Studies61 (3): 620–636.
14.
BrennanGLomaskyL (eds) (1989) Politics and Process: New Essays in Democratic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DischL (1994) Hannah Arendt and the Limits of Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
DryzekJListC (2003) Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science33 (1): 1–28.
17.
FriedmanM (1989) The Impracticality of Impartiality. The Journal of Philosophy86 (11): 645–656.
18.
GastilJ (2000) By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy Through Deliberative Elections. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
GastilJLevineP (eds) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-first Century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
GerberM (2015) Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis). Political Studies63 (1): 110–130.
21.
GoodinR (2000) Democratic Deliberation within. Philosophy and Public Affairs29 (1): 81–109.
22.
GutmannAThompsonD (1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
23.
GutmannAThompsonD (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
HabermasJ (1998) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
HuckfeldtRMendezJM (2008) Moths, Flames, and Political Engagement: Managing Disagreement within Communication Networks. Journal of Politics70 (1): 83–96.
26.
JacobsLRCookFLDelli CarpiniMX (2009) Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
KarpowitzCFMendelbergTShakerL (2012) Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review106 (3): 533–547.
28.
Kettering Foundation (2011) Naming and Framing Difficult Issues to Make Sound Decisions. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.
29.
KrauseSR (2008) Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LandwehrC (2010) Discourse and Co-Ordination: Modes of Interaction and their Roles in Political Decision-Making. Journal of Political Philosophy18 (1): 101–122.
31.
LandwehrC (2014) Facilitating Deliberation: The Role of Impartial Intermediaries in Deliberative Mini-Publics. In: GrönlundKBächtigerASetäläM (eds) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.77–92.
32.
MansbridgeJBohmanJChambersS (2010) The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy18 (1): 64–100.
33.
MansbridgeJHartz-KarpJAmengualM (2006) Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study. Journal of Public Deliberation2 (1): 1–47.
34.
MendusS (2002) Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
MillerD (1992) Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice. Political Studies40 (1): 54–67.
36.
MutzD (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
NagelT (1986) The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
NagelT (1987) Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs16 (3): 215–240.
39.
NebloMAEsterlingKMKennedyRP (2010) Who Wants to Deliberate—and Why?American Political Science Review104 (3): 566–583.
40.
NiemeyerS (2011) The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics. Politics & Society39 (1): 103–140.
41.
OrlieM (1994) Thoughtless Assertion and Political Deliberation. American Political Science Review88 (3): 684–695.
42.
PedriniS (2014) Deliberative Capacity in the Political and Civic Sphere. Swiss Political Science Review20 (2): 263–286.
43.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
44.
RawlsJ (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
45.
RikerW (1982) Liberalism versus Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Social Choice and Democracy. San Francisco, CA: William Freeman Co.
46.
RyfeD (2006) Narrative and Deliberation in Small Groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research34: 72–93.
47.
SenA (2002) Open and Closed Impartiality. Journal of Philosophy99 (9):445–469.
48.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SprainLGastilJ (2013) What Does It Mean to Deliberate? An Interpretive Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises. Communication Quarterly61 (2): 151–171.
50.
SteinerJBächtigerASpörndliM (2004) Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2007) Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation3 (1): Article 12.
52.
SunsteinCR (1995) Incompletely Theorized Agreements. Harvard Law Review108 (7): 1733–1772.
53.
WilliamsB (1981) Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
WilliamsM (1995) Justice Towards Groups: Political Not Juridical. Political Theory23 (1): 67–91.
55.
WilliamsM (2000) The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy. In: KymlickaWNormanW (eds) Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.124–152.
56.
YackB (2006) Rhetoric and Public Reasoning: An Aristotelian Understanding of Political Deliberation. Political Theory34 (4): 417–438.
57.
YoungIM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
