Page 124 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6
P. 124
do have their uses, it is imperative not to lose sight of the classic idea that democracy resides,
ultimately, with citizens who engage in talk with each other. This is certainly the basic premise of
those versions of democratic theory that see deliberation as fundamental. (Dahlgren, 2005, p. 149)
Gunderson (2000) thus advanced an argument relative to the value of deliberative process,
similar to the viewpoint of Arendt (1977), namely, that the benefit of deliberation is not the
resulting action, but the act itself. Gunderson further emphasized that the common good is more
about the ability to participate in decision-making, rather than the decision alone, noting that while
participation is a critical aspect of establishing the common good, it is generally a procedure carried
out by a collective rather than an outcome. In addition to analyzing the significance of the concept
of the common good, Gunderson explored the dyadic model from a normative perspective of
rational democracy relative to egalitarianism, reason-based outcomes, and fallible truths in which
the relationship of individuals to learning is an open-ended process. This process permits an on-
going process of change and revision, the evolutionary nature of deliberation, repeated critique,
and self-awareness. Gunderson’s view of conflict is presented as a companion to consensus, rather
than a condition solved by consensus. Many of us experience very little control over our lives in
the wider world, with decisions being made for us by protocol or bosses, peer groups, police,
politicians, priests, etc. Ideally, using consensus gives us a taste of how things could be done
differently. It aims to dismantle all kind of hierarchy and replace it with shared power. It is based
on the values of equality, freedom, co-operation and respect for everyone's needs.
In his elaboration of conflict and consensus, Gunderson (2000) drew on the research of
Black (1992) and Dietz (2000) citing four observations about why consensus alone is an unworthy
goal of deliberative and civic engagement:
105
