Content area
Abstract
The focus of my dissertation is to provide a detailed normative account of mutually respectful public discourse and three processes central to its achievement. I use these processes to examine both Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson's theory of democratic discourse, first presented in Democracy and Disagreement, and my account of discourse, termed "effective dialogue." I demonstrate that Gutmann and Thompson's theory is unable to realize the processes necessary to achieve mutually respectful discourse while effective dialogue fulfills these conditions.
The first process that is central to mutually respectful discourse is developing and supporting individuals' autonomy. I argue a relational account of autonomy is preferable because it acknowledges our vulnerability both to being degraded by others and to our own epistemic limitations in knowing when we are disrespectful of others. Drawing on Iris Marion Young's account of oppression and domination, I specify autonomy as including the capacities for effective agency and self-respect, understood as basal self-respect in Robin Dillon's work. The second central process is realizing mutual understanding. The third process is genuine inclusion of those who have a stake in discussing a topic.
In critiquing Gutmann and Thompson's theory of deliberative democracy, I employ Sandra Bern's concept of "lenses" and Hans Georg Gadamer's understanding of "prejudice" and "horizons" to argue that their theory will permit the marginalization of vulnerable groups in society.
Then, I demonstrate how effective dialogue secures the three central elements of mutually respectful discourse. It emphasizes solidarity and the virtues derived from a relational account of autonomy and Gadamer's account of hermeneutics. It provides a Gadamerian account of mutual understanding that depends upon the priority of the questions that are asked rather than being grounded in consensus. Finally, it offers necessary structures for discourse which ensure genuine inclusion while also providing a means for critical evaluation of individuals' reasons and policies that are proposed.
