What Are We Doing When We Are Doing Democratic Theory?

in Democratic Theory
View More View Less
  • 1 Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg dannica.fleuss@hsu-hh.de
  • 2 Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg gschaal@hsu-hh.de
Restricted access

Abstract

The article analyzes the (often implicit) understanding of democratic theory that is presupposed by scholars who engage in this practice and provides an answer to the question: “What are we doing when we are doing democratic theory?” We flesh out the core features of this scholarly activity by relating it to and differentiating it from assessments made from the perspective of political philosophy and political science. We argue that democratic theory aims at proposing institutional devices that are (a) problem-solving approaches and (b) embodiments of normative principles. This two-faced structure requires democratic theorists to engage in feedback loops with political philosophy on the one hand and empirical political science on the other. This implies that democratic theorists must adopt a dynamic approach: democratic theories must “fit” societal circumstances. In consequence, they must be adapted in case of fundamental societal transformations. We exemplify this dynamic character by referring to digitalization-induced changes in democratic societies and their implications for democratic theorists’ practice.

Contributor Notes

Dannica Fleuß is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer in political theory at Hamburg's Helmut Schmidt University. E-mail: dannica.fleuss@hsu-hh.de

Gary S Schaal is the chair of political science (political theory) at Hamburg's Helmut Schmidt University. E-mail: gschaal@hsu-hh.de

Democratic Theory

An Interdisciplinary Journal

  • Binns, Reuben. 2018. “Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason.” Philosophy and Technology 31 (4): 114. doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. 2017. “Moderne Technik in Asylverfahren.”

  • Dahl, Robert Alan. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Desmarais, Sarah, and Jay Singh. 2013. Risk Assessment Instruments Validated and Implemented in Correctional Settings in the United States. Report to the Justice Programs Office. School of Public Affairs. Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/11204/4006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dewey, John. 2018 (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Oxford: Holt.

  • Dryzek, John, and Jeffrey Berejikian. 1993. “Reconstructive Democratic Theory.American Political Science Review 87 (1): 4860. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938955

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Estlund, David, ed. 2012. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, ed. David Estlund, 321. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gallie, Walter Bryce. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1): 167198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Göhler, Gerhard. 1996. “Institutions in Political Theory.” In The European Union and Member States: Towards Institutional Fusion? ed. Dieter Rometsch and Wolfgang Wessels, 119. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodin, Robert, and Philip Pettit. 2007. “Introduction.” In A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, 16. Oxford: Blackwell.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helbing, Dirk. 2015: The Automation of Society Is Next. North Charleston: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

  • Herian, Robert. 2018. “Taking Blockchain Seriously.” Law and Critique 29 (2): 163171. doi:10.1007/s10978-018-9226-y.

  • Krüger, Julia, and Konrad Lischka. 2018. Damit Maschinen den Menschen dienen. Report to the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. doi:10.11586/2018019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Legg, Catherine, and Christopher Hookway. 2019. “Pragmatism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/pragmatism/ (accessed 27.6.2019).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Manski, Sarah, and Ben Manski. 2018. “No Gods, No Masters, No Coders? The Future of Sovereignty in a Blockchain World.” Law and Critique 29 (2): 151162. doi:10.1007/s10978-018-9225-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • March, James G, and Johan P Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  • Marjanovic, Olivera, Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic, and Richard Vidgen. 2018. “Algorithmic Pollution: Understanding and Responding to Negative Consequences of Algorithmic Decision-Making.” In Living with Monsters? Social Implications of Algorithmic Phenomena, Hybrid Agency, and the Performativity of Technology, ed. Ulrike Schultze, Margunn Aanestad, Magnus Mähring, Carsten Østerlund, and Kai Riemer, 3147. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04091-8_4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Norden, Lawrence, and Christopher Famighetti. 2015. “America's Voting Machines at Risk.” New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Offe, Claus. 1994. “Designing Institutions for East European Transitions.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E. Goodin, 199226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pasquale, Frank. 2016. The Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Paulin, Alois, Leonidas G. Anthopoulos, and Christopher G. Reddick, eds. 2017. Beyond Bureaucracy: Towards Sustainable Governance Information. Cham: Springer Nature.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rawls, John. 2009. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Reijers, Wessel, Iris Wuisman, Morshed Mannan, Primavera De Filippi, Christopher Wray, Vienna Rae-Looi, Angela Cubillos Vélez, and Liav Orgad. 2018. “Now the Code Runs Itself: on-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies.” Topoi 6 (1): 4555. doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9626-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rhodes, R. A. W., Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sabl, Andrew. 2015. “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2): 345365. doi:10.1017/S1537592715000079.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saward, Michael. 2003. “Enacting Democracy.Political Studies 51 (1): 161179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00418

  • Saward, Michael. 2011. “Slow Theory: Taking Time over Transnational Democratic Representation.Ethics and Global Politics 4(1): 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00418

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schmidtz, David. 2011. “Nonideal Theory: What It Is and What It Needs to Be.” Ethics 121 (4): 772796. doi:10.1086/660816.

  • Schmidtz, David. 2016. “A Realistic Political Ideal.” Social Philosophy and Policy 33 (1–2): 110. doi:10.1017/S0265052516000406.

  • Schmidtz, David. 2017. “Realistic Idealism.” In Methods in Analytical Political Theory, ed. Adrian Blau, 131152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Singer, Natasha. 2015. “Bringing Big Data to the Fight Against Benefits Fraud.” New York Times, December 20. www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/technology/bringing-big-data-to-the-fight-against-benefits-fraud.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stalder, Felix, 2017: “Algorithms We Need.” Netzpolitik.org, January 15. https://netzpoli-tik.org/20177/algorithms-we-need/.

  • Strübing, Jörg. 2007. “Research as Pragmatic Problem-Solving: The Pragmatist Roots of Empirically-Grounded Theorizing.” In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, ed. Antony Bryant und Kathy Charmaz, 580602, London: Sage.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • The Intercept. 2015. “US Government Designated Prominent Al Jazeera Journalist as Member of Al Qaeda.https://theintercept.com/document/2015/05/08/skynet-courier/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Veale, Michael, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. “Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making.” In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. Regan Mandryk and Mark Hancock, 114. New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Veale, Tony, and Mike Cook. 2018. Twitterbots: Making Machines That Make Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.American Political Science Review 111 (1): 3953. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000605

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yeung, Karen. 2019. “Regulation by Blockchain: The Emerging Battle for Supremacy between the Code of Law and Code as Law.” Modern Law Review 82 (2): 207239. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12399.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zweig, Katharina A., Georg Wenzelburger, and Tobias D Krafft. 2018. “On Chances and Risks of Security Related Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems.” European Journal for Security Research 3 (2): 181203. doi:10.1007/s41125-018-0031-2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 240 118 11
Full Text Views 74 20 0
PDF Downloads 76 35 0