The author argues that conditions of subordination limit opportunities for citizen participation and discourse and alter the forms and meanings of each. In her view, open participation in the forms recognized as conventional, virtuous, and authentic is often neither possible nor wise. The author offers James Scott’s work as a potential rejoinder to those who would require virtue of the nonapathetic and as an answer to Fox and Miller’s question, “Why bother attending a discourse where claims are as likely to be counterfeit as authentic?” Using Scott’s analysis of hidden transcripts as a point of theoretical departure, the author explores the impact of Fox and Miller’s warrants for discourse on perceptions of participation and dissent. She suggests that to be more fully inclusive, theorists might reconceptualize the ends of deliberative discourse and reconsider the place of Habermasian warrants in achieving them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackelsberg, M.
(1988). Communities, resistance, and women’s activism. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.), Women and the politics of empowerment (pp. 297-313). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2.
Bachrach, P.
, & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Burrell, G.
(1996). Normal science paradigms, metaphors, discourses, and genealogies of analysis. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 642-658). London: Sage.
4.
Ciuilla, J.
(1996). Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment. Ethics and leadership: Working papers (pp. 43-63). College Park: Kellogg Leadership Studies Project.
5.
DeMott, B.
(1996, December 9). Seduced by civility: Political manners and the crisis of democratic values. The Nation, 263(19), 11-19.
6.
Elshtain, J. B.
(1981). Public man, private woman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Farmer, D. J.
(1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
8.
Fischer, F.
(1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Forester, J.
(1983). Critical theory and organizational analysis. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 234-246). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
Forester, J.
(1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Fox, C. J.
, & Miller, H. T. (1996). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Fraser, N.
(1989). What’s critical about critical theory? The case of Habermas and gender. Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory (pp. 113-143). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
Fraser, N.
(1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Frederickson, G.
(1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22(4), 395-417.
15.
Galanter, M.
(1975). Why the haves come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law and Society Review, 9(1), 95-160.
16.
Gaventa, J.
(1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
17.
Gutmann, A.
, & Thompson, D. (1995). Moral disagreement in a democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 12(1), 87-110.
18.
Gutmann, A.
, & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Gutmann, A.
, & Thompson, D. (1998). Deliberative democracy: The case of bioethics. Liberal Education, 84(1), 10-17.
20.
Habermas, J.
(1983). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
21.
Hickey, D.
(1997). Air guitar: Essays on art and democracy. Los Angeles: Art Issues Press.
22.
Hirschman, A. O.
(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Honig, B.
(1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
Ivy, D.
, & Backlund, P. (1994). Exploring genderspeak. New York: McGraw Hill.
25.
Jones, K. B.
(1988). On authority: Or, why women are not entitled to speak. In I. Diamond & L. Quinby (Eds.), Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on resistance (pp. 119-133). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
26.
Junn, J.
(1997). Assimilating or coloring participation? Gender, race, and democratic participation. In C. J. Cohen, K. B. Jones, & J. C. Tronto (Eds.), Women transforming politics (pp. 387-397). New York: New York University Press.
27.
Lakoff, R.
(1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
28.
Landes, J. B.
(1995). The public and the private sphere: A feminist reconsideration. In J. Meehan (Ed.), Feminists read Habermas: Gendering the subject of discourse (pp. 91-116). New York: Routledge.
29.
Lukes, S.
(1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
30.
Mansbridge, J.
(1996). Reconstructing democracy. In N. J. Hirschmann & C. Di Stefano (Eds.), Revisioning the political: Feminist Reconstructions of traditional concepts in western political theory (pp. 117-138). Boulder, CO: Westview.
31.
McCarthy, T.
(1978). The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
McCarthy, T.
(1983). Translator’s introduction. In J. Habermas (Ed.), The theory of communicative action (pp. vii-xxxix). Boston: Beacon Press.
33.
McSwite, O. C.
(1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Minow, M.
(1997). Not only for myself: Identity, politics and the law. New York: New Press.
35.
Newton, K.
(1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 575-586.
36.
Putnam, L.
, Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 375-408). London: Sage.
37.
Scott, J. C.
(1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Stivers, C.
(1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 86-105.
39.
Stone, D.
(1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.
40.
White, O.
(1998). The ideology of technocratic empiricism and the discourse movement in contemporary public administration: A clarification. Administration & Society, 30(4), 471-476.
41.
Young, I. M.
(1987). Impartiality and the civic public: Some implications of feminist critiques of moral and political theory. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique (pp. 56-76). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
Young, I. M.
(1997). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy (pp. 60-74). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Young, I. M.
(1998, September 5). Inclusive political communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
