Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
Citations
194 citations
Cites background from "Between Facts and Norms: Contributi..."
...As parliamentary democracy is weakened, other forms of democracy, such as deliberative and participatory democracy, are put forward as important political institutions, particularly in a globalising world [59]....
[...]
193 citations
Cites background from "Between Facts and Norms: Contributi..."
...Through communication, members of voluntary associations come to understand each other and affirm their understanding of each other’s meanings and intentions (Habermas, 1991, 1996)....
[...]
...That both leaders and gardeners proved to have relatively strong democratic values was in keeping with Hemingway’s (1999b) belief that “leisure would seem to be a significant filter through which those who would take an interest and be active in political action must necessarily pass” (p. 501). Even general participation in community gardening is typically regarded as a civic act, so it makes sense that study participants would report strong democratic values. Not surprisingly, leaders reported significantly stronger political orientations than did gardeners. In doing so, they supported Putnam’s (2000) assertion that the intensity of membership in voluntary associations is important to the development of democratic citizens, if one accepts that the roles of leader and gardener reflect different intensity levels. Evidently, the more active and invested in the project, at least with respect to leadership, the stronger the political orientation/democratic values. Despite the theoretical relationship between sociability and democracy, the association between the social behavior of community garden participants and their political citizenship orientations was mixed. Surprisingly, social interactions associated with talking and visiting with other community gardeners during a typical week were unrelated to political citizenship, even though they presumably reaffirmed the sociable bonds among fellow community gardeners. The absence of a strong relationship is curious given that from such social interaction flows attitudes such as specific trust and tolerance, which are clearly significant for democratic citizenship. By contrast, time spent in the garden during which participants presumably interacted together in a social manner was a positive correlate with political citizenship, as well as a weak predictor. Given that the actual act of community gardening is more civically oriented than is general social contact, the results made intuitive sense. Notably, they suggested the context in which the social contact took place was salient. Not only did the intensity of participation matter, in terms of the time people spent in the garden (Putnam, 2000), but context mattered. With respect to the democratic values of community garden participants, presumably the garden space was an important venue because of its public sphere effects. Community gardening facilitated social interactions among participants and concentrated them on matters associated, perhaps only tangentially, to the community garden. The leisure dimension of community gardening presumably added to this effect. As Rojek (1999) pointed out, “the culture [of leisure] encourages people to be relaxed, to speak their minds, and be themselves” (p....
[...]
...That both leaders and gardeners proved to have relatively strong democratic values was in keeping with Hemingway’s (1999b) belief that “leisure would seem to be a significant filter through which those who would take an interest and be active in political action must necessarily pass” (p. 501). Even general participation in community gardening is typically regarded as a civic act, so it makes sense that study participants would report strong democratic values. Not surprisingly, leaders reported significantly stronger political orientations than did gardeners. In doing so, they supported Putnam’s (2000) assertion that the intensity of membership in voluntary associations is important to the development of democratic citizens, if one accepts that the roles of leader and gardener reflect different intensity levels. Evidently, the more active and invested in the project, at least with respect to leadership, the stronger the political orientation/democratic values. Despite the theoretical relationship between sociability and democracy, the association between the social behavior of community garden participants and their political citizenship orientations was mixed. Surprisingly, social interactions associated with talking and visiting with other community gardeners during a typical week were unrelated to political citizenship, even though they presumably reaffirmed the sociable bonds among fellow community gardeners. The absence of a strong relationship is curious given that from such social interaction flows attitudes such as specific trust and tolerance, which are clearly significant for democratic citizenship. By contrast, time spent in the garden during which participants presumably interacted together in a social manner was a positive correlate with political citizenship, as well as a weak predictor. Given that the actual act of community gardening is more civically oriented than is general social contact, the results made intuitive sense. Notably, they suggested the context in which the social contact took place was salient. Not only did the intensity of participation matter, in terms of the time people spent in the garden (Putnam, 2000), but context mattered. With respect to the democratic values of community garden participants, presumably the garden space was an important venue because of its public sphere effects. Community gardening facilitated social interactions among participants and concentrated them on matters associated, perhaps only tangentially, to the community garden. The leisure dimension of community gardening presumably added to this effect. As Rojek (1999) pointed out, “the culture [of leisure] encourages people to be relaxed, to speak their minds, and be themselves” (p. 87). In other words, participation in the gardens likely involved chatting with other gardeners informally while participating in a presumably enjoyable activity. In this fashion, time spent in garden was conceivably a combination of social and civic activity. While interacting with others, participation in the gardens may have facilitated social exchange and heightened critical consciousness about neighborhood issues, which potentially prompted participants to adopt and practice democratic values. As Rojek (1999) reminded us, “leisure is a cultural activity with a determinate network of rules of relaxation and exchange” (p. 87). Thus, the community garden appeared to offer a truly free venue in which participants could deliberate and address issues of collective importance. While Hemingway (1999b) noted, “political activity of all kinds is carried on within leisure contexts” (p. 501), he also added, as did Shaw (2001), that (leisure) behavior can be unintentionally political....
[...]
...That both leaders and gardeners proved to have relatively strong democratic values was in keeping with Hemingway’s (1999b) belief that “leisure would seem to be a significant filter through which those who would take an interest and be active in political action must necessarily pass” (p....
[...]
...That both leaders and gardeners proved to have relatively strong democratic values was in keeping with Hemingway’s (1999b) belief that “leisure would seem to be a significant filter through which those who would take an interest and be active in political action must necessarily pass” (p. 501). Even general participation in community gardening is typically regarded as a civic act, so it makes sense that study participants would report strong democratic values. Not surprisingly, leaders reported significantly stronger political orientations than did gardeners. In doing so, they supported Putnam’s (2000) assertion that the intensity of membership in voluntary associations is important to the development of democratic citizens, if one accepts that the roles of leader and gardener reflect different intensity levels. Evidently, the more active and invested in the project, at least with respect to leadership, the stronger the political orientation/democratic values. Despite the theoretical relationship between sociability and democracy, the association between the social behavior of community garden participants and their political citizenship orientations was mixed. Surprisingly, social interactions associated with talking and visiting with other community gardeners during a typical week were unrelated to political citizenship, even though they presumably reaffirmed the sociable bonds among fellow community gardeners. The absence of a strong relationship is curious given that from such social interaction flows attitudes such as specific trust and tolerance, which are clearly significant for democratic citizenship. By contrast, time spent in the garden during which participants presumably interacted together in a social manner was a positive correlate with political citizenship, as well as a weak predictor. Given that the actual act of community gardening is more civically oriented than is general social contact, the results made intuitive sense. Notably, they suggested the context in which the social contact took place was salient. Not only did the intensity of participation matter, in terms of the time people spent in the garden (Putnam, 2000), but context mattered. With respect to the democratic values of community garden participants, presumably the garden space was an important venue because of its public sphere effects. Community gardening facilitated social interactions among participants and concentrated them on matters associated, perhaps only tangentially, to the community garden. The leisure dimension of community gardening presumably added to this effect. As Rojek (1999) pointed out, “the culture [of leisure] encourages people to be relaxed, to speak their minds, and be themselves” (p. 87). In other words, participation in the gardens likely involved chatting with other gardeners informally while participating in a presumably enjoyable activity. In this fashion, time spent in garden was conceivably a combination of social and civic activity. While interacting with others, participation in the gardens may have facilitated social exchange and heightened critical consciousness about neighborhood issues, which potentially prompted participants to adopt and practice democratic values. As Rojek (1999) reminded us, “leisure is a cultural activity with a determinate network of rules of relaxation and exchange” (p. 87). Thus, the community garden appeared to offer a truly free venue in which participants could deliberate and address issues of collective importance. While Hemingway (1999b) noted, “political activity of all kinds is carried on within leisure contexts” (p....
[...]
182 citations
180 citations
Cites background from "Between Facts and Norms: Contributi..."
...…a great deal of scholarly interest in “deliberative democracy”— in the claim that properly structured public debate can increase political legitimacy, build social capital, and transform the identity of citizens in positive ways (Gutmann and Thompson (1996); Habermas (1996); Mansbridge (1984))....
[...]
180 citations
References
4,002 citations
1,526 citations
1,338 citations
936 citations
911 citations