Deliberation Online: An Impediment Against Fundamentalism Offline?

The opposition between fundamentalism and deliberative democracy is basic to the argument of this article. In the following we shall take our point of departure in a procedural understanding of fundamentalism that enables us to see how different substantive values might turn out to be fundamentalist...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Thorseth, May (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2011
In: Oñati Socio-Legal Series
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Keywords:

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a2200000 4500
001 1689901039
003 DE-627
005 20230711142026.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200212s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.15496/publikation-38293  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1689901039 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1689901039 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
082 0 4 |a 360 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Thorseth, May  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Deliberation Online: An Impediment Against Fundamentalism Offline?  |c May Thorseth 
264 1 |c 2011 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The opposition between fundamentalism and deliberative democracy is basic to the argument of this article. In the following we shall take our point of departure in a procedural understanding of fundamentalism that enables us to see how different substantive values might turn out to be fundamentalist. Any form of communication that obstructs possible change of preferences might be fundamentalist. The decisive criterion is thus not to point out particular forms of communication as fundamentalist or deliberative per se; the decisive criterion is how the communication works. Based on our procedural understanding of fundamentalism we move on to argue in favour of a value pluralism that is basic to deliberative democracy. This pluralism is then contrasted to both fundamentalism and relativism. In order to establish value pluralism there is a need for judgment of particular norms and values – as opposed to merely understanding of the differences. Hence, it is argued that value pluralism requires substantive judgment of the differences. The arguments partly draw upon Jürgen Habermas’ idea of unconstrained discourse and Charles Taylor’s discussion of politics of recognition, along with Immanuel Kant’s concept of reflective judgment, or enlarged thought, in his third critique. In order to make legitimate judgments of particular norms and values we need to judge from the perspective of everyone else. The latter part of the article discusses how online contexts of communication contribute to global communication and deliberative democracy. Online polling, blogs and storytelling are forms of communication that may, under certain circumstances, make substantial contributions. James Fishkin’s idea of deliberative polling online and Robert Cavalier’s PICOLA project are discussed. In concluding it is argued that the virtual realities that are available online might be even more important than the democratic procedures per se in realising more enlarged thought and global democracy worldwide. Hence, global communication online might, under certain circumstances, work as an impediment against fundamentalist knowledge offline. 
650 0 7 |0 (DE-588)4671998-2  |0 (DE-627)342168797  |0 (DE-576)214896269  |a Deliberative Demokratie  |2 gnd 
650 0 7 |0 (DE-588)4137178-1  |0 (DE-627)104458224  |0 (DE-576)209675438  |a Fundamentalismus  |2 gnd 
650 0 7 |0 (DE-588)4308416-3  |0 (DE-627)123816106  |0 (DE-576)211106267  |a Internet  |2 gnd 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law  |t Oñati Socio-Legal Series  |d Oñati : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2011  |g 1(2011), 5, Seite 1-19  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)718614828  |w (DE-600)2661059-0  |w (DE-576)365227927  |x 2079-5971  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:1  |g year:2011  |g number:5  |g pages:1-19 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-38293  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 1  |j 2011  |e 5  |h 1-19 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3593893355 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1689901039 
LOK |0 005 20200212145840 
LOK |0 008 200212||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-21  |c DE-627  |d DE-21 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Deliberate democracy 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Procedural fundamentalism 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Reflective judgment 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Online polling 
LOK |0 689   |a s 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-21 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x Download, Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, 2020 
LOK |0 935   |a opus  |a krim 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw