IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v50y2006i3p634-649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals

Author

Listed:
  • John S. Dryzek
  • Simon Niemeyer

Abstract

While consensus is often taken to be the ideal way to secure political legitimacy, a more robust pluralism has many defenders too. We attempt to reconcile arguments for pluralism and consensus. Pluralism ought to be accepted and valued at the simple level of values, beliefs, and preferences. Pluralism at this level can nevertheless coexist with normative, epistemic, and/or preference meta‐consensus, all of which have qualities that should attract even pluralists. However, close attention must be paid to the content of meta‐consensus and the conditions of its production or discovery.

Suggested Citation

  • John S. Dryzek & Simon Niemeyer, 2006. "Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 634-649, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:50:y:2006:i:3:p:634-649
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    2. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Simon Niemeyer, 2011. "The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics," Politics & Society, , vol. 39(1), pages 103-140, March.
    4. Kurt Bayer, 2015. "Institutional Set-up and Conflict Resolution – Implementation of the WWWforEurope Transition Strategy. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 99," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58256, Juni.
    5. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    6. Rob Barlow, 2022. "Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 543-561, December.
    7. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    8. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    9. Harald König & Martina F. Baumann & Christopher Coenen, 2021. "Emerging Technologies and Innovation—Hopes for and Obstacles to Inclusive Societal Co-Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Dryzek, John S. & Pickering, Jonathan, 2017. "Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 353-360.
    11. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    12. Emanuela Ceva, 2012. "Just interactions in value conflicts: The Adversary Argumentation Principle," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 149-170, May.
    13. Valeria Salvatori & Estelle Balian & Juan Carlos Blanco & Xavier Carbonell & Paolo Ciucci & László Demeter & Agnese Marino & Andrea Panzavolta & Andrea Sólyom & Yorck von Korff & Juliette Claire Young, 2021. "Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Sarah Clement, 2022. "Knowledge governance for the Anthropocene: Pluralism, populism, and decision‐making," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(S3), pages 11-23, December.
    15. Hélène Landemore & Scott E. Page, 2015. "Deliberation and disagreement," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(3), pages 229-254, August.
    16. Konow, James, 2008. "The Moral High Ground: An Experimental Study of Spectator Impartiality," MPRA Paper 18558, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Cedric E. Dawkins, 2021. "An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 5-19, April.
    18. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    19. Tasneem Siddiqui & Lucy Szaboova & W. Neil Adger & Ricardo Safra de Campos & Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan & Tamim Billah, 2021. "Policy Opportunities and Constraints for Addressing Urban Precarity of Migrant Populations," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S2), pages 91-105, April.
    20. Valeria Ottonelli & Daniele Porello, 2013. "On the elusive notion of meta-agreement," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(1), pages 68-92, February.
    21. Stephen Morse, 2008. "Post-sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 341-352.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:50:y:2006:i:3:p:634-649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.