Habermasian vs. Rawlsian deliberative democracy

Emancipation or accommodation?:

from Philosophy & Social Criticism recent issues by Rostboll, C. F.

The development of the theory of deliberative democracy has culminated in a synthesis between Rawlsian political liberalism and Habermasian critical theory. Taking the perspective of conceptions of freedom, this article argues that this synthesis is unfortunate and obscures some important differences between the two traditions. In particular, the idea of internal autonomy, which was an important, implicit idea in the ideology critique of the earlier Habermas, falls out of view. There is no room for this dimension of freedom in political liberalism and it has largely disappeared from the later Habermas. In so far as others have followed Rawls and Habermas, deliberative democratic theory has converged around a less critical and more accommodationist view of freedom. If we want to keep deliberative democracy as a critical theory of contemporary society, we should resist this convergence. Our starting point should not be `the fact of reasonable pluralism' but rather `the fact of unreflective acquiescence'. This article argues for incorporating internal autonomy in a complex theory of freedom to which deliberative democracy should be normatively committed.

GregorianStudyCircle : Photos

GregorianStudyCircle : Photos

Paulose Mar Gregorios, Indian Christian Philosopher

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info

Paulose Mar Gregorios, Indian Christian Philosopher


A Short Biography of Paulos Mar Gregorios

Higher level collective consciousness.

Our world is structured in such a way that smaller units combine to
form bigger units. Thus a living being is made of cells. Actually
each cell is a living being. There are unicellular living beings. A
living being such as a cat or a dog or a man is actually a huge
community of cells living together in a highly structured manner.
Let us think specifically about a human being. A human being is
actually a huge community of cells (billions of them). Let us imagine
that each neuron in my head has its own self-consciousness. Billions
of them together form my brain, and they collectively give me my self-
consciousness. Thus a neuron has two levels of consciousness—one of
its own, and a higher level collective consciousness.

We, human beings, collectively make higher units. The nature, which
includes the human beings, animals, plants, air, earth, water, and
sky, may be seen as a huge living being. We, human beings, may be
seen as the neurons in its brain. Each individual human being has a
self-consciousness that sees oneself separate from others. But we all
have a higher level of collective consciousness, the self-
consciousness of the nature. We will develop to this higher level of
consciousness if we let our mind grow to that level. This growth is
not a mere intellectual knowledge. It is a real awareness of oneness
with everything. This oneness is felt not only with everything in the
nature but also with God.



Read it all here   Gregorian study Circle