HABERMASÇI MÜZAKERECİLİĞE KARŞI

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Habermasçı müzakereci demokrasinin eleştirel bir değerlendirilmesi sunulmakta ve demokratik idealdeki değerli konumuna rağmen siyasetin içeriğini ve alanını daraltması hasebiyle Habermas’ın ‘kamusal müzakere’ kavramının müzakereci demokrasiyi alternatif bir demokrasi teorisi olarak düşünmemiz için yeterli olmadığı iddia edilmektedir. Burada, Habermasçı müzakereciliğin, çeşitlilikler dolayısıyla ortaya çıkan ihtiyaçlara cevap veremediği, bunun da bu anlayışın 1 dışlayıcı, 2 elitistoligarşist açıklanmaktadır. Mevcut düzenin korunmasına odaklanan Habermasçı demokrasi yerine günümüz çoğulcu toplumlarında dışlanmış kesimlerin demokratik alana dahil edilmesi ve mevcut problemlere cevap vermek üzere kamusal-siyasal alanın genişletilmesi adına agonistik demokrasiye ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Habermas
• kamusal müzakere
• agonistik demokrasi

AGAINST HABERMASIAN DE A LIBERATION

Abstract

This study offers a critical evaluation of Habermasian deliberative democracy, arguing that despite its valuable place in democratic ideal, Habermasian ‘public deliberation’ is not enough to think deliberative democracy as an alternative theory of democracy as it diminishes the content and space of the politics. Habermasian deliberation is less responsive to the needs of diversity for its 1 exclusionary, 2 elitist-oligarchic, and 3 depoliticizing aspects. Instead of a Habermasian understanding of democracy that is oriented to maintain existing order, today’s pluralistic societies needs agonistic understanding of democracy for including excluded segments of societies as well as for widening the public-political space to respond the present problems

Keywords

• Habermas
• public deliberation
• agonistic democracy

Kaynakça

1. Arendt, H. (1968) Between past and future: eight exercises in political thought, New York: Penguin Books.
2. Arendt, H. (1982) Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Arendt, H. (1990) ‘Philosophy and politics’, Social Research, vol.57, no. 1, pp. 73-103.
4. Arendt, H. (1998) The human condition, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Baynes, K. (2002) ‘Deliberative democracy and the limits of liberalism’, in Von Schomberg, R. and Baynes, K. (eds.) Discourse and democracy: essays on Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms, Albany: State University of New York Press.
6. Bell, D. A. (1999) ‘Democratic deliberation: the problem of implementation’, in Macedo, S. (ed.), Deliberative politics: essays on democracy and disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Canovan, M. (1985) ‘Politics as culture: Hannah Arendt and the public realm’, History of Political Thought, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 617-642.
8. Chambers, S. (2003) ‘Deliberative democratic theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 6, pp. 307-326.

9. Cooke, M. (2000) ‘Five arguments for deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, vol. 48, pp.947-969.
10. Dahlberg, L. (2004) ‘The Habermasian public sphere: a specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication’, Studies in Social and Political Thought, vol. 10, pp. 2-18.
11. Dikeç, M. (2012) ‘Beginners and equals: political subjectivity in Arendt and Ranciere’, Transections of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 78-90.
12. Guttman, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why deliberative democracy?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13. Habermas, J. (1984) Reason and the rationalization of society, Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, trans. by Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.
14. Habermas, J. (1996) Between facts and norms: contribution to a discourse theory of law and democracy, trans. by William Rehg, Cambridge: MIT Press.
15. Honig, B. (1995) ‘Toward an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of identity’, in Honig, B. (ed.) Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
16. Lafont, C. ‘Is the Ideal of a Deliberative Democracy Coherent?’, in S. Besson and J.L. Martí (eds.), Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2006.
17. McCarthy, T. (1996) ‘Legitimacy and diversity: dialectical reflections on analytical distinctions’, Cardozo Law Review, vol. 17, no. 4-5, pp. 1083-1125.
18. Manin, B. (1987) ‘On legitimacy and political deliberation’, Political Theory, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 338-368.
19. Mouffe, C. (1999) ‘Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism’, Social Research, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 745-758.
20. Munnichs, G. (2002) ‘Rational politics? An exploration of the fruitfulness of the discursive concept of democracy’, in Von Schomberg, R. and Baynes, K. (eds.) Discourse and democracy: essays on Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms, Albany: State University of New York Press.
21. Pennington, M. (2003) ‘Hayekian political economy and the limits of deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, vol. 51, pp. 722-739.
22. Pennington, M. (2010) ‘Democracy and the deliberative conceit’, Critical Review. Vol. 22, no. 2-3, pp. 159-184.
23. Plant, R. (1982) ‘Jürgen Habermas and the idea of legitimation crisis’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 10, pp. 341-352.
24. Rehg, W. (1997) Insight and solidarity: the discursive ethics of Jürgen Habermas, California: California University Press.
25. Rehg, W. and Bohman, J. (2002) ‘Discourse and democracy: the formal and informal bases of legitimacy in Between Facts and Norms’, in Von Schomberg, R. and Baynes, K. (eds.) Discourse and democracy: essays on Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms, Albany: State University of New York Press.
26. Sanders, L. M. (1997) ‘Against deliberation’, Political Theory, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 347-375.
27. Schaap, A. (2006) ‘Agonism in divided societies’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 255-277.
28. Schaffer, J. K. (2012) ‘The boundaries of transnational democracy: alternatives to the all-affected principle’, Review of International Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 321-342.
29. Villa, D. R. (1992) ‘Postmodernism and the public sphere’, The American Political Science Review, vol.86, no.3, pp. 712-721.
30. Walzer, M. (1999) ‘Deliberation, and what else?’ in Macedo, S. (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Young, I. M. (1996) ‘Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy’ in Benhabib, S. (ed.), Democracy and difference, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Young, I. M. (2000) Inclusion and democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.