Page 128 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

and power, Mansbridge (1996) drew upon real world conditions, in contrast to the ideals of

normative democratic theory, a factor that strengthens her argument in the contemporary literature.

Mansbridge’s (1996) work goes on to include a further exploration of coercion that looked

at consent as a means of legitimating the concept, noting that only under certain conditions is

coercion helpful and useful to deliberation, primarily in situations where equal power among

participants is sought. In this manner, Mansbridge covered key concerns of deliberative democracy

from the perspective of minorities and, disadvantaged and underrepresented populations in her

discussion of subaltern counter publics and enclave deliberation. Subaltern counter publics (Fraser,

1990) is a term used to describe an alternative public in which “parallel discursive arenas where

members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter discourses, which in turn

permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (p.

67). Alternate forums for gathering, as described by Mansbridge and Fraser, provide spaces and

environments for participants who might otherwise have a limited voice, or no voice at all in

deliberative discussion comprised of individuals representing minority and majority populations.

Democratic deliberation also has other goals, including forging the bonds of solidarity that

help to solve collective action problems. Collective action problems arise from the many goods

humans need that must be supplied jointly but are “non-excludable” in the sense that once

provided, no one can be excluded from their benefits. The most efficient societies, as well as often

the most just, solve many such collective action problems by appealing for contributions to a

“moral core” within each individual that consists both of cognitive commitments to principles of

duty, fulfillment of promises, and the like and of more emotionally-based reasons for making the

good of others one’s own. The larger the moral core that prompts voluntary contribution, the

smaller the need for state or social coercion (Mansbridge, 2001).

109