Legitimate Speech and Hegemonic Idiom: The Limits of Deliberative Democracy in the Diversity of its Voices

Abstract

This article locates tensions at the heart of deliberative democracy by contrasting insights of Pierre Bourdieu and Jürgen Habermas. It argues that deliberation contains implicit presuppositions of two opposing sorts. Universalising presuppositions lead people to treat one another as equals. Differentiating ones lead people to treat one another as of greater or lesser worth in political dialogue. They undercut deliberative democracy by rendering some points of view less valuable than others. These contrary tendencies cannot be reconciled in a purely theoretical way; they are contextually specific challenges that must be negotiated in politics itself. In response, this article seeks to clarify the difficulties faced by deliberative regimes and better understand their relation to other forms of politics.