Title

審議民主與多元社會的穩定

Translated Titles

Deliberative Democracy and the Stability of a Pluralist Society

DOI

10.6523/168451532014060049001

Authors

吳澤玫(Tse-Mei Wu)

Key Words

審議民主 ; 穩定性問題 ; 古德曼 ; 湯普森 ; 審議 ; deliberative democracy ; the problem of stability ; Amy Gutmann ; Dennis Thompson ; deliberation

PublicationName

政治與社會哲學評論

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

49期(2014 / 06 / 01)

Page #

1 - 58

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

在自由主義民主社會裡,公民經常對社會制度和公共政策抱持歧見,因而穩定性問題對所有當代多元社會構成重要的挑戰。我們必須正視並加以解決的問題是:如何促使抱持不同道德觀和價值觀的公民,自願接受並遵守重要制度和政策的規範?本文的目的在於闡明,古德曼和湯普森的審議民主觀如何及在何種程度上能夠確保多元社會的穩定。筆者將指出,公共審議可以發揮集思廣益、轉換個人偏好、促進相互尊重、為決策結果賦予正當性的功能,故可縮小政治歧見的範圍,促使公民更願意支持並遵守最後的決議。而古德曼和湯普森的審議動態性主張亦有助於確保穩定。然而,他們的理論缺乏可行的實作機制,須輔以這類機制的設計,才能真正實現公共審議的穩定性功能。

English Abstract

In a liberal democratic society, citizens frequently disagree about various social institutions and public policies. The problem of stability presents a challenge for every contemporary pluralist society. The problem we are faced with is how citizens can be motivated to accept and comply with institutions and policies voluntarily, even if they affirm different conceptions of morality and good. The purpose of this essay is to formulate how and to what extent the conception of deliberative democracy proposed by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson can secure the stability of a pluralist society. I will point out that public deliberation can produce a brainstorming effect, transform individuals' preferences from private interests to public interests, promote mutual respect between citizens, and confer legitimacy on the results of policy-making. These effects can mitigate political disagreement and make citizens more willing to support or comply with the ultimate results. Moreover, Gutmann and Thompson argue that the deliberative process is dynamic, which is also conducive to stability. However, their theory lacks practical mechanisms, and such mechanisms should be offered as supplements in order to realize the stabilizing functions of public deliberation.

Topic Category 人文學 > 哲學
社會科學 > 社會學
社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 林祐聖 2007 〈我們沒有台上台下之分─代理孕母公民共識會議中的專家與常民關係〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,7 卷2 期, 頁1-32。
    連結:
  2. 林國明、陳東升 2003 〈公民會議與審議民主:全民健保的公民參與經驗〉,《台灣社會學》,6 期,頁61-118。
    連結:
  3. 陳東升 2006 〈審議民主的限制─台灣公民會議的經驗〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3 卷1 期,頁77-104。
    連結:
  4. Ackerman, Bruce and James S. Fishkin 2003 “Deliberation Day,” in James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett eds., Debating Deliberative Democracy. Malden, M.A.: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 7-30.
    連結:
  5. Chambers, Simone 2001 “Constitutional Referendums and Democratic Deliberation,” in Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin eds., Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. New York: Palgrave, pp. 231-255.
    連結:
  6. Chambers, Simone 2004 “Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 389-410.
    連結:
  7. Elster, Jon 1998a “Introduction,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-18.
    連結:
  8. Elster, Jon 1998b “Deliberation and Constitution Making,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-122.
    連結:
  9. Fearon, James D. 1998 “Deliberation as Discussion,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44-68.
    連結:
  10. Fishkin, James S. 1997 The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    連結:
  11. Fishkin, James S. 2002 “Deliberative Democracy,” in Robert L. Simon ed., The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 221-238.
    連結:
  12. Fishkin, James S. and Cynthia Farrar 2005 “Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource,” in John Gastil and Peter Levine eds., The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 68-79.
    連結:
  13. Fishkin, James S. and Robert C. Luskin 2005 “Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion,” Acta Politica 40(3): 284-298.
    連結:
  14. Freeman, Samuel 2000 “Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 29(4): 371-418.
    連結:
  15. Gambetta, Diego 1998 “‘Claro!’: An Essay on Discursive Machismo,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-43.
    連結:
  16. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson 1996 Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  17. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson 1999 “Democratic Disagreement,” in Stephen Macedo ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 243-279.
    連結:
  18. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson 2004 Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    連結:
  19. Hayward, Bronwyn M. 1995 “The Greening of Participatory Democracy: A Reconsideration of Theory,” Environmental Politics 4(4): 215-236.
    連結:
  20. Hume, David 2000 A Treatise of Human Nature, eds. by David Fate Norton and Mary I. Norton. New York: Oxford University Press.
    連結:
  21. Lynch, Sterling 2009 “The Fact of Diversity and Reasonable Pluralism,” Journal of Moral Philosophy 6(1): 70-93.
    連結:
  22. Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman and Simone Chambers et al. 2010 “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy,” Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 64-100.
    連結:
  23. McAfee, Noëlle 2004 “Three Models of Democratic Deliberation,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 18(1): 44-59.
    連結:
  24. Neblo, Michael 2005 “Part I: A Systemic View of Deliberation-Thinking through Democracy: Between the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Politics,” Acta Politica 40(2): 169-181.
    連結:
  25. Rawls, John 1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    連結:
  26. Rawls, John 1985 “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14(3): 223-251.
    連結:
  27. Rawls, John 1993 Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
    連結:
  28. Smith, Graham 2003 Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London; New York: Routledge.
    連結:
  29. Thompson, Dennis F. 2008 “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 497-520.
    連結:
  30. 黃東益 2007 〈審慎思辯民調〉,收錄於廖錦桂、王興中主編,《口中之光:審議民主的理論與實踐》。台北:財團法人台灣智庫,頁95-98。
  31. Barry, Brian 1995 “John Rawls and the Search for Stability,” Ethics 105(4): 847-910.
  32. Fishkin, James S. 2012 “Deliberative Polling®: Executive Summary,” Center for Deliberative Democracy. Available at http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/
  33. Rawls, John 1996 “Introduction to the Paperback Edition,” in John Rawls, Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. xxxvii-lxii.
  34. Schauer, Frederick 1999 “Talking as a Decision Procedure,” in Stephen Macedo ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-27.
  35. Shapiro, Ian 1999 “Enough of Deliberation,” in Stephen Macedo ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28-38.
  36. Smith, Graham and Corinne Wales 2002 “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy,” in Maurizio Passerin D'Entrèves ed., Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 157-177.
  37. Squires, Judith 2002 “Deliberation and Decision Making: Discontinuity in the Two-Track Model,” in Maurizio Passerin D'Entrèves ed., Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 133-156.
  38. Sunstein, Cass R. 2001 Republic.com. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  39. Wertheimer, Alan 1999 “Internal Disagreements,” in Stephen Macedo ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 170-183.
Times Cited
  1. 吳澤玫(2018)。論羅爾斯的穩定性論證。國立臺灣大學哲學論評,56,89-138。
  2. 賴彥全、王麗雲(2018)。教育政治歧見之處理:由A. Gutmann民主教育觀點反思高中課綱微調爭議與出路。教育研究集刊,64(3),1-40。