Changes

In the past decade, there have been several attempts to strip deliberation off its rationalist bias. The limits of this first conception of deliberation have been repeatedly pointed out by various scholars: difference democrats advocate the respect for differences2 jeopardisedby a procedural conception of deliberation (Young, 1996; Sanders 1997; Young, 1999; Young, 2001), radical democrats go a step further in accusing deliberative democracy of concealing the oppressive dimension of our current liberal and oligarchic democratic systems (Mouffe, 1996; Rancière, 2006), and theoreticians of social choice reject the normative possibility of overcoming private interests through rational discussion3 (Austen-Smith and Riker, 1987; Austen-Smith, 1990; Austen-Smith, 1992; Dryzek,2000; Dryzek, 2007)(from<ref>Laurence Monnoyer-Smith, 2012, Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation</ref>). Difference democrats and feminists allege that deliberative theorists’ focus on rational, dispassionate discussion creates a stifling uniformity and constrains deliberation (e.g., Sanders 1997<ref>Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.</ref>). According to Sanders, many (usually) disadvantaged people do not engage in idealized forms of deliberation, which suits only a privileged few. Therefore, difference democrats and feminists stress the need to admit wider forms of communication – such as testimony, storytelling, or rhetoric – to avoid these constraints. Following Mansbridge et al. (2009)<ref>Mansbridge, J. J. (2009). Deliberative and non-deliberative negotiations.</ref> self-interest must also have a place in deliberative models: “Including self-interest in deliberative democracy reduces the possibility of exploitation, introduces information that facilitates reasonable solutions and the identification of integrative outcomes, and also motivates vigorous and creative deliberation. Excluding self-interest from deliberative democracy is likely to produce obfuscation.” Empirical research also demonstrates that bargaining - representing the central instrument of expressing and accomplishing self-interest in negotiations - and deliberation usually go together in reality<ref>Risse, T. (2004). Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 288–313.</ref>.