This chapter builds on the emerging normative premises of deliberative democratic theory in order to sketch out the diverse contributions that deliberation can make to the enhancement of environmental governance. The current deliberative turn is a recent phenomenon in modern democratic theory (Dryzek, 2000, p. 1), and one important focus of the scholarly work is the integration of different theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, a concern reflected in the academic literature relates to how some of these theoretical models fail to address cultural, institutional, and psychological elements[1].
In order to encompass elements of these different dimensions in this overview of deliberation s potential contributions to environmental governance, this chapter makes use of the quadrants perspective, and element of U.S. philosopher Ken Wilber s integral theory. Quadrants constitute one of the major aspects in Wilber s AQAL[2] integral framework. It is a valuable instrument to understand any phenomenon in a comprehensive way, by integrating the four perspectives most commonly used in epistemological approaches: the external, observable dimensions (behavior and systems) and the internal, subjective dimensions (experience and culture) (Brown, 2006, p. 64).
The analytical approach used in this chapter seeks to reflect elements from each of these four dimensions. A graphic representation interrelation between the quadrants map is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As can be seen, the left side of the diagram contains the internal (subjective) dimensions, while the right side contains the externally observable (objective) dimensions. The perspective of a single individual or organism (whether subjective or objective) is portrayed in the upper quadrants, while the lower ones contain the collective perspective of groups, networks or systems of individuals or organisms.
The development and application of the quadrants has been conceived to support the integration of all four of the aforementioned lenses or perspectives in the study of phenomena as diverse as ecology, sustainability, governance, and education, among others. Thus it aims to offset the limitations of some analytical approaches due to their consideration of only certain of these dimensions.
Figure 4.1. The Quadrants Map of Integral Theory
Adapted from Brown (2006, pp. 8-18)
EXPERIENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION
The first quadrant that will be analyzed is the experiential quadrant, which contemplates personal subjective experience, and phenomena generally classified as psychological or, in some cases, spiritual. As Riedy (2006) states the position taken by an individual during deliberation is dependent on their cognitive ability, values, morals, self identity, and other interior structures (p. 52).
From a deliberative perspective, a person, through certain modes of communicative action, can attain a better understanding of her own policy preferences in relation to those of others and in the context of reasonable standards for the common or greater good. Thus, it is posited that a person will be able to re-examine her own views (opinions, preferences, priorities) in light of information received from others, and hence resolve any conflicts between her views and those of others, by assessing which present the soundest validity claims . Hence, deliberative democratic theory attributes greater relevance to individual introspection than aggregative democratic theory.
Two elements of Introspection commonly regarded as essential for deliberation are self-reflection and empathy. Self-reflection, in the context of deliberation, entails the examination of one s own thoughts, feelings and beliefs, and the ability to revise them critically seeking to explore the validity of the presuppositions of the meaning perspectives we hold [and] question where these presuppositions came from, how they were formed and if they are still valid , and at a deeper level still, to critically reflect on our own process of faming these problems and perspectives. (Fisher-Yoshida, 2005, p. 8). For many deliberative theorists, self-reflection informed by an open dialogue with others is crucial for the outcomes of deliberation to both have collective legitimacy and to fully reflect the truly free actions of an individual.[3].
While self-reflection can help broaden and transform our framing of the issues, the second introspective element, empathy, defined as the ability to experience the emotional state of another, and practice constantly doing so (Macnair, 2003, p. 61), allows the person to overcome her preconceptions about the motivations of others and to more openly listen to them with the purpose of understanding their perceptions. In this way, a person is able to move beyond selfish concerns and to pay attention to the common good (Steenbergen, B chtiger, Sp rndli & Steiner, 2004, p. 9).
CULTURAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION
Under the integral theory framework, a second fundamental perspective for the study of phenomena is that of collective interiors or intra-subjectivity , most commonly associated the domain of culture. At the cultural level, the communicative interaction of deliberation can lead stakeholders with diverse worldviews to establish active trust, which as was seen in Chapter 2, is not based on traditional roles but rather on more reflective mutual understanding and more transparent social relations (Giddens, 2001, p. 100). It can also foster the collaborative construction of a more integrative worldview. This is illustrated by Riedy (2006)
From a cultural perspective, deliberation is an interplay of different discourses and worldviews. ( ) Cultural interaction and contestation challenges unconsidered views and preferences. This challenge is central to deliberation as it has the potential to induce reflection and perhaps a change in preferences. The challenge of deliberation is to reach a shared decision that all members of the group can support, even if they have different reasons for their support. This decision constitutes a shared discourse that integrates, in some way, the various discourses involved in the deliberation (p. 52).
Because identities often arise in order to distinguish oneself from others, a consequence can be the formation of negative characterizations of others. That is, identities can promote tension and exclusion, fostering an in-group/out-group dynamic wherein outsiders are stereotyped and motives are attributed to them that are frequently inaccurate but are nonetheless imposed in order to elevate the in-group s view of themselves (p. 207). |
Steenbergen et al. (2004) observe that the respectful and rational discourse that takes place in deliberative interaction can support the development of superordinate identities which encourage the recognition of common ground among actors who have confronting identities. (p. 13).
BEHAVIORAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION
The third approach for exploring deliberation is the behavioral dimension, which corresponds to observable patterns of activity by individuals, including the action of communicating with others. A behavioral perspective related to deliberation can focus on the behaviors during the deliberation process or on behaviors (or changes in behavior) as outcomes of the deliberation process. Examples of the former include types of speech, body language and brain activity during deliberation (Riedy, 2006, p. 52), or specific indicators that assess the quality of deliberation such as those comprising the Discourse Quality Index (DQI) developed by Steenbergen et al. (2004, p. 6; see also B chtiger & Steenbergen, 2004, p. 32).
Although this in no way contests the value of the DQI as an instrument to assess the quality of a deliberative interaction, from an integral framework perspective it is problematic as a reference point for understanding the behavioral element, this is because many of its indicators focus more on the introspective and cultural dimensions than on the behavioral dimension (external, individual quadrant). A more straightforward way of approaching the element of behavior during deliberation is to look at an observable reference point of what the deliberative process is intended to be: a transformed communicative action. The process of this transformed communication is composed of introspective and cultural elements (and systemic elements that have not yet been discussed) and by specific communicative behaviors. These behaviors entail at least four elements: participation (electing to take part in the deliberation process), listening (respectful listening of the views of others), speaking (formulating one s own views and validity claims), and metacommunication (discussing the process itself of communication).
With regards to behaviors resulting from deliberation, among the most commonly studied ones are: political behavior (voting choices, personal engagement in political issues, and policy or decision-making preferences), conformity with or departure from the dominant group s views, and habitual behaviors related to particular issues (such as consumption patterns or recycling in the case of the environment). Throughout much of the scholarly discourse about deliberation (Steenbergen et al., 2004, p. 10; Riedy, 2006, p. 52; Rostboll, 2005, p. 372) the transformation of preferences is regarded as a key outcome of deliberation, and this shift in preferences can be expected to correlate with changes in behaviors such as habits and political actions.
SYSTEMIC ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION
The final dimension in the study of deliberation involves social and natural systems. As Riedy (2006) mentions deliberation is a practice engaged in by a group of people, supported by particular technological, economic, social and political systems (p. 52). Some recent work on promoting successful deliberation has focused on institutional design, an aspect pertaining to the domain of social and political systems that can influence the feasibility and success of deliberation (Steenbergen et al., 2006, pp. 18-20).
For some scholars, the original conception of deliberation relies on idealized conditions of equality and agency that are, in general terms, still unattained under the current political reality; therefore, embodying and preserving the values of deliberation in suboptimal circumstances requires adapting them to the existing economic, social and political realities (Fung, 2005, pp. 387-400). On the other hand, deliberation can also be an instrument for transforming the social, economic and political context in order to support a more inclusive, equitable and reasoned involvement by multiple stakeholders, as several international experiences suggest[4].
The systemic level is also relevant to deliberation in terms of the complexity of nested spatial levels (local, regional, national, multinational and global). Shannon stresses the growing need for increased generative deliberation and coordination across policy sectors and geographic levels, in response to the rising diversity and complexity of policy communities, as evidenced in her remarks about the particular needs of the forestry sector
( ) the kinds of problem forest policy addresses today demand integration because no one policy sector, agency or political actor can effectively address the problem alone. The new issues cross boundaries ecologically, socially, politically, administratively and legally. Indeed, frequently several regions, states and countries are involved and their separate regimes must find ways to work together on a common problem (2003, Conclusions, Paragraph 1).
This section has identified key elements of the normative conception of deliberation and classified them according to the four dimensions (or quadrants) used in the integral framework, as summarized in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2. Normative Elements of Deliberative Democracy
classified according to the Quadrants Map
DELIBERATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: AN INTEGRATIVE VIEW
As it was discussed in Chapter 2, there are multiple definitions of environmental governance, and diverse visions of what it encompasses. However, the same chapter also points out a particular context under reflexive modernity in which environmental governance can benefit from the specific contributions of a deliberative democratic model.
This section focuses on two particular challenges stressed in the recent literature on environmental democracy: responsiveness to plural views (Smith, 2003, pp. 13-28), and social legitimation (Marshall & Goldstein, 2006, pp. 223-226). This section will address the theoretical contributions of deliberative democracy (and the interactions among the four integral dimensions) for each of these challenges.
A. Responsiveness to plural views.
As Smith (2003) asserts, a diversity of moral sources and traditions have affected our thinking about the environment and given rise to the diversity of different positions within the environmental movement (p. 19). Smith contends that an environmental agenda rooted in the belief that there can be a single ethical perspective to guide the entire environmental movement is unrealistic and can lead to the loss of much of the richness of human non-human interactions (pp. 20-21). In contrast, he argues that different and conflicting accounts of the good life exist within the environmental movement, and that it is not always possible to reduce these different values to one another or to an independent standard.[5]
Environmental governance thus needs to respond to plural perspectives and values, while acknowledging that decision-making will at times entail making judgments under conditions where reason may not generate a single objectively right answer. However, this should not be perceived as a cause to abandon the effort to make reasoned decisions, but rather as a reminder that different stakeholders will often base their judgments on different value frames. Thus, by becoming aware of the diversity of perceptions and values comprising the environmental movement, and gaining an enriched understanding of those values, each person can strengthen the reflexive nature of her or his own perspective, and the collaborative character of her or his interaction.
To comprehend another s judgement is to attempt to understand the perspective from which they judge, and, through such an attempt, one s own perspective becomes a matter for reflection. Through understanding the judgement of others we come to recognise that our own perspectives may be limited and fallible, in that certain values may be ignored or misrepresented ( ) It is only through encountering other perspectives and value orientations that we are able to come to reflexive judgements. (Smith, 2003, p. 25).
Hence, as this particular issue illustrates, an element pertaining to the cultural dimension (value pluralism), partly rooted in systemic causes (the complexity and interconnectedness of environmental issues), can affect the emergence of an experiential phenomenon (self-reflection). Furthermore, the opportunity for this insight to emerge will also depend on the availability of the proper conditions at the institutional (systemic) level, such as the access to appropriate fora for exchanging views, and the communicative (behavioral) level, like ensuring that mutual listening indeed takes place.
B. Social legitimation.
In Chapter 2, the notion of an environmental legitimation crisis, proposed by Marshall and Goldstein (2006, p. 218), was discussed. Their work expands on the crisis theory of the Frankfurt school, and the notion of a democratic legitimation crisis developed by Jurgen Habermas (Ure a, 1998, pp. 112-113).
Marshall and Goldstein (2006) perceive the Ecological system as a semi-autonomous system interacting with three other systems (economic, political administrative and socio-cultural). The environmental legitimation crisis arises when the Political Administrative system is unable to address the degradation of the three key functions of the Ecological system: supply depot, waste repository and living space and fails to protect the citizenry from the impacts of their degradation (p. 216). They identify three main manifestations of this crisis, two of which are in the form of claims made by the citizens against the State[6], whereas the third involves the emergence of grassroots environmental movements to protect communities from environmental degradation, where the State is seen as neglectful in fulfilling this function (p. 220).
Concerning environmental governance, a key contribution of Marshall and Goldstein is providing a framework that addresses both environmental degradation, in objective terms, compounded by the impact of negative views on the State s environmental institutions (as undeserving of the public trust). Under such a dual crisis, ecological systems deteriorate and the existing institutions and traditions of management and problem-solving face declining credibility and capabilities. However, there is also an element of opportunity associated with such a crisis, as was discussed in Chapter 2, since it can herald the emergence of a more reflexive and participative citizenry and the transformation of the conventional dynamics of trust into a active trust that needs to be earned by institutional actors (Giddens, 2001, p. 100).
Life politics, according to Giddens, are an emerging framework of politics where decisions that would have previously been based on tradition and established roles are now articulated around choice and identity (2001, p. 97). Life politics can become generative politics and serve as the scaffolding for the construction of active trust if it can create new meaning, new resources, new social organizations, new values and new interests through public deliberation (Shannon, 2002, p. 13).
Thus, as the cultural (dynamics of trust) and systemic (environmental degradation and loss of institutional legitimacy) dimensions of environmental governance are facing intertwining transformations, the construction of viable solutions must therefore be approached through multiple and sometimes overlapping dimensions. Generative politics requires the construction of new identities and values (cultural), the manifestation of new preferences and modes of interaction (experiential and behavioral), and the creation of new institutional arrangements and social organizations (systemic).
WORKS CITED CHAPTER 4
B chtiger, A. & Steenbergen, M.R. (2004, November). The real world of deliberation: A comparative study of its favorable conditions in legislatures. EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2004/17. Florence: European University Institute. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/2634/1/sps2004-17.pdf
Brown, B. (2006, September). The four worlds of sustainability: Drawing upon four universal perspectives to support sustainability initiatives. AQAL Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. Retrieved October 21, 2006 from http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/files/35/sustainability/default.aspx
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2005, June). Reframing conflict: Intercultural conflict as potential transformation. Journal of Intercultural Communication-SIETAR, 8, 1-16. Retrieved December 14, 2008 from http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/FisherYoshidaReframingConflictSIETAR.pdf
Fishkin, J. S. (1999). Chapter Twelve Toward Deliberative Democracy: Experimenting with an Ideal. In K.E. Soltan (Ed.) Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions, (pp. 279-290). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27794998
Formless Mountain (n.d.) Integral Quadrants. An integral atelier. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from http://www.formlessmountain.com/quads.htm
Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between
theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 515-539.
Fung, A. (2005, June). Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33, 397-419. Retrieved February 6, 2007 from http://plx.sagepub.com/
Goodin, R.E. & Dryzek, J.S. (2006, June). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34 (2), 219-244. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from http://plx.sagepub.com/
Guild, W., Lehr, R. & Thomas D. (2003, August 19). Nebraska Public Power District Customer Meeting on Energy Alternatives: Summary of results. Retrieved January 6, 2007 from http://www.nppd.com/newsroom/additional_files/deliberative_polling_results.pdf
Hoechst, E. H. (2004, Apr). Not open for discussion: A psychological account of democratic deliberation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://64.112.226.69/one/mpsa/mpsa04/index.php?cmd=mpsa04
Macnair, R.C., (2003). The psychology of peace: An introduction. Westport, C.T.: Praeger.
Marshall, B.K., & Goldstein, W.S. (2006). Managing the environmental legitimation crisis. Organization and Environment, 5, 214-232. Retrieved June 17, 2007 from http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/214
Muhlberger, P. (2006). Report to the Deliberative Democracy Consortium: Building a deliberation measurement toolbox (Version 1.0). Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.geocities.com/pmuhl78/DDCReport.pdf
Riedy, C. (2006, May). Two social practices to support emergence of a global collective. Journal of Future Studies, 10 (4), 45-60.
Rosenberg, S.W. (2004). Reconstructing the concept of democratic deliberation. CSD Paper 04-02. Irvine: University of California. Center for the Study of Democracy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/04-02
Rosenberg, S.W. (2006). Types of democratic deliberation: the limits and potential of citizen participation. CSD Paper 06-12. Irvine: University of California. Center for the Study of Democracy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/06-12
Rostboll, C.F. (2005, June). Preferences and paternalism: On freedom and deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 33 (3), 370-396. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from http://ptx.sagepub.com/
Shannon, M. A. (2002). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form and emergent institution. In O. Gislerud & I. Neven (Eds.), National Forest Programs in a European Context: European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 44 (pp. 7-25). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.efi.fi/attachment/f5d80ba3c1b89242106f2f97ae8e3894/774cf3cc4b717eb20ca0fc07c769978e/Proc_44.pdf
Shannon, M. A. (2003). Mechanisms for coordination. In Dub , Y. C. & Schmith sen, F. (Eds.), Cross-sectoral policy impacts between forestry and other sectors. FAO Policy Paper No. 142. Rome: FAO. Retrieved January 13, 2008 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4653E/y4653e08.htm
Shannon, M. A. (2002). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form and emergent institution. In O. Gislerud & I. Neven (Eds.), National Forest Programs in a European Context: European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 44 (pp. 7-25). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.efi.fi/attachment/f5d80ba3c1b89242106f2f97ae8e3894/774cf3cc4b717eb20ca0fc07c769978e/Proc_44.pdf
Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. New York: Routledge.
Steenbergen, M.R., B chtiger, A., Sp rndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2004, May). Toward a political psychology of deliberation. Paper presented at the Conference on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics, Florence: European University Institute. Retrieved on January 11, 2007 from
http://www.iue.it/SPS/People/SwissChairPdfFiles/PaperSteenbergenetal.pdf
Ure a, E.M. (1998). La teoria critica de la sociedad de Habermas: La crisis de la sociedad industrializada [The critical theory of society of Habermas: The crisis of industrialized society].(2nd ed.). Madrid: Tecnos.
Wilber, K. (2001). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Wondolleck, J. M., Gray, B. & Bryan, T. (2003). Us versus them: How identities and characterizations influence conflict. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 207-213.
[1] See for example concerns expressed by: Steenbergen, B chtiger, Sp rndli and Steiner (2004) and of Rosenberg ( ) regarding the neglect of psychological variables; XXXXX regarding underrepresented or excluded discourses; and XXXX regarding the lack of institutional prescriptions.
[2] Quadrants is one of five elements of the AQAL framework. The acronym AQAL stands for all quadrants, all levels, all streams, all states, all types. A more thorough description of the complete framework, including all elements, is available at Wilber (2001, pp. 42-55). There is also an online interactive summary of the quadrants map at Formless Mountain (n.d.) available at this link http://www.formlessmountain.com/quads.htm
[3] Joshua Cohen (cited in Hoechst, 2004) states that according to most proponents of deliberative democracy, political decisionmaking is legitimate insofar as its policies are produced in a process of public discussion and debate in which citizens and their representatives, going beyond mere self-interest and limited points of view, reflect on the general interest or their common good (p. 2) [emphasis added].
Additionally, Peter Muhlberger (2006), states that ( ) agency is the capacity to choose and successfully execute actions consistent with a coherent and reflectively determined self.( ) It is only by reflexively considering their values and preferences that people exercise agency that is only by subjecting uncritically absorbed values and preferences to conscious and thoughtful reflection (p. 11) [emphasis in the original].
[4] Examples include the cases of Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and subsequently in other Latin American cities (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006, p. 222); democratic decentralization initiatives in the Indian State of Kerala (Fung, 2003, p. 528); and participatory energy planning through deliberative polls in nine United States electric utilities (Fishkin, 1999, p. 288; Guild, Lehr & Thomas, 2003, p. 5)
[5] Smith labels the first situation value incompatibility and the second value incommensurability . To illustrate the first, he points to the existing diversity in conceptions of sustainable development. As an example of the second, he offers the case of valuating a rainforest, where aesthetic, scientific, cultural, and economic judgments cannot be reduced to one another. (2003, pp. 20-23).
[6] These two claims, involving recreancy and agency capture, have been described more extensively in Chapter 2.
Posts
