Polite separatism or uniform unity?

An article published in Political Theory Journal in January 2017 discussed the moral versus procedural aspects of deliberative democracy. The article analysed different theories and positions of renowned theorists, including the two preeminent post-WWII philosophers, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas regarding the role of reason in political accord. The author, Dereker Barker, suggests that deliberative theory sees politics as an integrative model, and seeks to locate the process of public will-formation on formal processes that adhere to certain rule, rather than a sense of collective identity. Collective identity, whether considered in its most individualist or communitarian form forms a baseline for public reasoning in a general and broad sense, and not a representation of individualist sense of morality. Haberman refuses – as quotes in Three Normative Models – that political questions be reduced to the type of ethical questions we ask ourselves regarding who we are and who we would like to be. He rejects collective identity as the basis of a deliberative model, whose legitimacy lies in impersonal formal processes.

 

Barker argues that deliberative democracy requires a shared civic culture of mutual understanding of differences. It does not require an intense sense of social solidarity, but needs citizens to share habits, inclinations and capacities to engage in communication across their differences. He also explains that according to Rawl, public reason enables citizens to see liberal democratic institutions in public terms, independent of their particular moral and religious worldviews. Public reason necessarily requires to reason from others’ perspective, whilst considering at the same time that public reasoning might be jeopardised when it conflicts with their personal interests and beliefs.

 

In this context, it is necessary to consider the difference between pluralist liberalism and civic republicanism. The latter seeks to establish social harmony, while the latter demonstrates a lukewarm acceptance and tolerance to differences.  Reason that tolerates differences or reason that is based on common beliefs is a question that must be addressed in nations that are witnessing rapid changes in their cultural landscape.

 

Should a growing community of Chinese immigrants be forcefully influenced by the western code of conduct so that deliberations would be based on common understanding, or should their views be respected and untouched but not taken into account on the premises of ‘majority rules’. What is more important, preserving culture or exerting influence?

 

The collective identity of any society is destined to metamorphose, owing to changes in its composition and to the developing religious, ideological and intellectual bases. However, if this change is witnessed uniformly across a homogenous society, political deliberations would be successful and public reasoning would be void of individualistic considerations. The picture is not quite the same when it concerns a society that is composed of a segregated society that favours political marginalisation to an identity loss.

 

As an immigrant/expat myself, I still do not know whether reason or heart should decide on this.

Derek Barker (2017) Deliberative Justice and Collective Identity: A Virtues-Centred Perspective, Political Theory, 2017, Vol. 45 (1) 116-136