Democracy as Intellectual Taste? Pluralism in Democratic Theory

REFERENCES

• Althaus, Scott L. 2012. “What’s Good and Bad in Political Communication Research? Normative Standards for Evaluating Media and Citizen Performance.” In Sage Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Holli A. Semetko and Margaret Scammell. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ancell, Aaron. 2017. “Democracy Isn’t That Smart (But We Can Make It Smarter): On Landemore’s Democratic Reason.” Episteme 14(2): 161–75. doi: 10.1017/epi.2015.67
   Google Scholar
• Azevedo, Jane. 1997. Mapping Reality: An Evolutionary Realist Methodology for the Natural and Social Sciences. Albany, N.Y: SUNY Press
   Google Scholar
• Bauböck, Rainer. 2008. “Normative Political Theory and Research.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, John, and Alfred Moore. 2010. “Should We Aim for Consensus?” Episteme 7(3): 198–214. doi: 10.3366/epi.2010.0203
   Google Scholar
• Beerbohm, Eric. 2011. “Democracy as an Inflationary Concept.” Representation 47(1): 19–28. doi: 10.1080/00344893.2011.550195
   Google Scholar
• Beetham, David. 1999. Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, Richard. 1999. Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Besson, Samantha. 2005. The Morality of Conflict: Reasonable Disagreement and the Law. Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, Jason. 2014. “How Smart is Democracy? You Can't Answer that Question A Priori.” Critical Review 26(1–2): 33–58. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.907040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Wendy. 2002. “At the Edge.” Political Theory 30(4): 556–76. doi: 10.1177/0090591702030004006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchstein, Hubertus, and Dirk Jörke. 2003. “Das Unbehagen an der Demokratietheorie.” Leviathan 31(4): 470–95. doi: 10.1007/s11578-003-0027-8
   Google Scholar
• Buchstein, Hubertus, and Dirk Jörke. 2013. “Political Science and Political Thought.” In Encyclopedia of Modern Political Thought, ed. Gregory Claeys. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Busen, Andreas. 2015. “Non-domination, Non-normativity and Neo-republican politics.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 18(4): 407–23. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2015.1033858
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, Ian. 2015. “Value-freeness and Value-neutrality in the Analysis of Political Concepts.” In Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy 1, ed. David Sobel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheibub, José Antonio, Adam Przeworski, Fernando Limongi, and Michael Alvarez. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?” Journal of Democracy 7(1): 39–55. doi: 10.1353/jod.1996.0016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97(1): 26–38. doi: 10.1086/292815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 2003. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. Thomas Christiano. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, David, and Steven Levitsky 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49(3): 430–51. doi: 10.1353/wp.1997.0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, William. 1983. The Terms of Political Discourse, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, William. 2002. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, expanded ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• D’Agostino, Fred. 2013. “Critical Notice: The Orders of Public Reason.” Analytic Philosophy 54(1): 129–55. doi: 10.1111/phib.12009
   Google Scholar
• della Porta, Donatella. 2013. Can Democracy Be Saved? Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• della Porta, Donatella, and Michael Keating. 2008. “How Many Approaches in the Social Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction.” In idem, eds., Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowding, Keith, and William Bosworth. 2018. “Ambiguity and Vagueness in Political Terminology: On Coding and Referential Imprecision.” European Journal of Political Theory.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John. 2004. “Democratic Political Theory.” In Handbook of Political Theory, ed. Gerald Gaus and Chandran Kukathas. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John, and Simon Niemeyer. 2006. “Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 634–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips. 2006. “Introduction.” In idem, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dufek, Pavel, and Jan Holzer. 2013. “Democratisation of Democracy? On the Discontinuity Between Empirical and Normative Theories of Democracy.” Representation 49(2): 117–34. doi: 10.1080/00344893.2013.816189
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, Ronald. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ebeling, Martin. 2017. “Is Moral Deference Reasonably Acceptable?” Social Epistemology 31(3): 296–309. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1317870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elga, Adam. 2011. “Reflection and Disagreement.” In Social Epistemology: Essential Readings, ed. Alvin Goldman and Dennis Whitcomb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, Richard. 2006. “Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.” In Epistemology Futures, ed. Stephen Hetherington. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, Jonathan. 2017. Is Political Philosophy Impossible? Thoughts and Behaviour in Normative Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazer, Elizabeth. 2008. “Political Theory and the Boundaries of Politics.” In Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, ed. David Leopold and Marc Stears. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeden, Michael. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeden, Michael. 2005. “What Should the ‘Political’ in Political Theory Explore?” Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2): 113–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00216.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeden, Michael. 2013. The Political Theory of Political Thinking: The Anatomy of a Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freyenhagen, Fabian. 2011. “Taking Reasonable Pluralism Seriously: An Internal Critique of Political Liberalism.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 10(3): 323–42. doi: 10.1177/1470594X10388381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, Jeffrey. 2014. “Political Epistemology.” Critical Review 26(1–2): i–xiv. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.940778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, Jeffrey. 2018. Power without Knowledge: A Critique of Technocracy. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, Gerald. 1996. Justificatory Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, Gerald. 2011. The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, Gerald. 2016. The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert, and Kai Sipekermann. 2018. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. “Three Normative Models of Democracy.” Constellations 1(1): 1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x
   Google Scholar
• Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardin, Russell. 2008. “Normative Methodology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkesworth, Mary. 2011. “Feminist Theories of Power.” In Encyclopedia of Power, ed. Keith Dowding. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy, 3rd. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, Lu, and Scott Page. 2004. “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 101(46): 16,385–89. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403723101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingham, Sean. 2012. “Disagreement and Epistemic Arguments for Democracy.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 12(2): 136–55. doi: 10.1177/1470594X12460642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackman, Henry. 2014. “Meaning Holism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning-holism/
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy. 2010. “Political Theory as Profession and as Subfield.” Political Research Quarterly 63(3): 655–73. doi: 10.1177/1065912910367495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, Thomas. 2010. “Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.” In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted Warfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Jack, and James Johnson. 2011. The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Jack, Hélène Landemore, Nadia Urbinati, and Daniel Viehoff. 2016. “Roundtable on Epistemic Democracy and Its Critics.” Critical Review 28(2): 137–70. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2016.1206744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornmesser, Stephan, and Gerhard Schurz. 2014. “Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaften, Einleitung und Übersicht.” In idem, eds., Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Koudelka, Josef. 2016. “The Refugee Regime and Its Weaknesses: Prospects for Human Rights and Kant’s Ethic.” Human Affairs 26(3): 356–70. doi: 10.1515/humaff-2016-0030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kurki, Milja. 2013. Democratic Futures: Re-Visioning Democracy Promotion. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd ed. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Laden, Anthony. 2014. “The Practice of Equality.” In Justice, Democracy, and the Right to Justification: Rainer Forst in Dialogue, ed. Rainer Forst et al. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, David. 2011. “Why “Isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00661.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2012. “Collective Wisdom, Old and New.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, ed. Hélène Landemore and Jon Elster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2014. “Yes, We Can (Make it Up on Volume): Answer to Critics.” Critical Review 26(1–2): 184–237. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.940780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement: The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31(3): 277–95. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1317868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Jon Elster, eds. 2012. Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Scott Page. 2015. “Deliberation and Disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14(3): 229–54. doi: 10.1177/1470594X14544284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latsis, Spiro J. 1976. “Preface.” In idem, ed., Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leca, Jean. 2011. “Political Philosophy in Political Science, Sixty Years On. Part II: Current Features of Contemporary Political Philosophy.” International Political Science Review 32(1): 95–113. doi: 10.1177/0192512111402304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lembcke, Oliver, Claudia Ritzi, and Gary S. Schaal. 2012. “Zwischen Konkurrenz und Konvergenz, Eine Einführung in die normative Demokratietheorie.” In idem, eds., Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie, Band 1, Normative Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, Matthias, and Gary S. Schaal. 2014. “Paradigmenpluralität in der Politikwissenschaft. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Faches in Deutschland.” In Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaft, ed. Stephan Kornmensser and Gerhard Schurz. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• List, Christian. 2002. “Two Concepts of Agreement.” The Good Society 11(1): 72–9. doi: 10.1353/gso.2002.0011
   Google Scholar
• List, Christian. 2007. “Deliberation and Agreement.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern? ed. Shawn Rosenberg. New York: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Mair, Peter. 2008. “Concepts and Concept Formation.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martí, José Luis. 2017. “Pluralism and Consensus in Deliberative Democracy.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20(5): 556–79. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2017.1328089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkel, Wolfgang. 2014. “Is There a Crisis of Democracy?” Democratic Theory 1(2): 11–25. doi: 10.3167/dt.2014.010202
   Google Scholar
• Moffett, Marc. 2007. “Reasonable Disagreement and Rational Group Inquiry.” Episteme 4(3): 356– 67. doi: 10.3366/E1742360007000135
   Google Scholar
• Möllers, Christoph. 2012. Demokratie, Zumutungen und Versprechen, 3rd ed. Berlin: Wagenbach.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, J. Donald. 2004. “The Current State of Political Theory: Pluralism and Reconciliation.” In What Is Political Theory? ed. Stephen K. White and J. Donald Moon. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Muldoon, Ryan. 2016. Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2010. Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ottonelli, Valeria, and Danielle Porello. 2013. “On the Elusive Notion of Meta-Agreement.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12(1): 68–92. doi: 10.1177/1470594X11433742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, Scott. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne. 2013. “Epistemic Foundations of Political Liberalism.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 598–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettit, Philip. 2013. On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, Philip. 2015. “Justice, Social and Political.” In Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy 1, ed. David Sobel et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Paul. 2014. “Making It Up on Volume: Are Larger Groups Really Smarter?” Critical Review 26(1–2): 129–50. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.907046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism, expanded ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Risse, Mathias. 2009. “On the Philosophy of Group Decision Methods: I. The Nonobviousness of Majority Rule.” Philosophy Compass 4(5): 793–802. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00224.x
   Google Scholar
• Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2006. Democracy, Past and Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld, Michel. 2008. “Rethinking Constitutional Ordering in an Era of Legal and Ideological Pluralism.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 6(3–4): 415–55. doi: 10.1093/icon/mon023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, Christian. 2017. “Democratic Respect and Compromise.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20(5): 619–35. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2017.1328092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. Theory of Democracy Revisited: Part I, The Contemporary Debate. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, Ben. 2010. “Democracy, Political Equality, and Majority Rule.” Ethics 121(1): 148–77. doi: 10.1086/656474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saward, Michael. 1998. The Terms of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saward, Michael. 2003. Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosberg, David. 2006. “The Pluralist Imagination.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, ed. John Dryzek et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Manfred G. 2008. Demokratietheorien, Eine Einführung, 4th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schurz, Gerhard, and Stephan Kornmensser, eds. 2014. Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schurz, Gerhard. 2014. “Koexistenz und Komplementarität rivalisierender Paradigmen, Analyse, Diagnose und kulturwissenschaft liches Fallbeispiel.” In Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaft, ed. Gerhard Schurz and Stephan Kornmensser. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2015. “Epistemic Democracy and Its Challenges.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 19.1–19.17. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-110113-121908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somin, Ilya. 2014. “Why Political Ignorance Undermines the Wisdom of the Many.” Critical Review 26(1–2): 151–69. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.907047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, A. John. 2007. Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stich, Stephen. 2014. “When Democracy Meets Pluralism: Landemore’s Epistemic Argument for Democracy and the Problem of Value Diversity.” Critical Review 26(1–2): 170–83. doi: 10.1080/08913811.2014.940779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talisse, Robert. 2009. Democracy and Moral Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Charles. 1967. “Neutrality in Political Science.” In Philosophy, Politics, and Society, 3rd series, ed. Peter Laslett and Walter Runciman. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Valentini, Laura. 2013. “Justice, Disagreement and Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 43: 177–99. doi: 10.1017/S0007123412000294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallier, Kevin. 2013. “Public Justification.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justification-public/
   Google Scholar
• Vallier, Kevin. 2016. “In Defence of Intelligible Reasons in Public Justification.” Philosophical Quarterly 66: 599–616. doi: 10.1093/pq/pqv117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent, Andrew. 2004. The Nature of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, Andrew. 2012. “Political Ideology and Political Theory: Reflections on an Awkward Partnership.” In Liberalism as Ideology: Essays in Honour of Michael Freeden. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, Mark. 1996. “Deliberative Democracy and Authority.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 46–60. doi: 10.2307/2082797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedgwood, Ralph. 2010. “The Moral Evil Demon.” In Disagreement, ed. Richard Feldman and Ted Warfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, Daniel. 2017. “Compromise, Pluralism, and Deliberation.” Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy 20(5): 636–55. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2017.1328093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, Michael, and Ryan Muldoon. 2009. “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy of Science 76(2): 225–52. doi: 10.1086/644786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Stephen K. 2004. “Pluralism, Platitudes and Paradoxes: Western Political Thought at the Beginning of a New Century.” In What Is Political Theory? ed. Stephen K. White and Donald Moon. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Young, Iris M.. 2000. Inclusion and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, David. 2001. “Review Article: Perils of Value-Ladenness in Politics, Science and Philosophy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 9(2): 217–47. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar