Abstract
ABSTRACT“Deliberative activism” refers to the integration of two ideals of citizen participation: deliberation and activism. While there are strong arguments for bridging the gap between the two ideals, it is equally important to keep what is distinct about deliberative activism because all activism is not (and presumably should not aspire to be) deliberative. In this article, we claim that there are certain ethical and epistemic norms of deliberation that can inform our understanding of “deliberative activism”, thereby help to draw the boundary between activism and deliberative activism. By looking at a particular form of activism—provocative art—that is intuitively antithetical to the deliberative ideal, we argue that simple activism can be differentiated from deliberative activism by considering to what extent activists’ adhere to principles of reasonableness and dialogic responsiveness. Using four cases of controversial, provocative art exhibitions in Sweden that challenges the boundaries of public deliberation, we conclude that that it is important to distinguish acts that initiate deliberation from those that are acts of deliberation in themselves. The distinguishing factor must be at the heart of deliberation namely an ethical commitment to dialogue. To the very least, actors must explain their claim as if they were in dialogue.
Highlights
Deliberation and activism represent two contrasting ideals of citizen participation in politics
By looking at a particular form of activism—provocative art—that is intuitively antithetical to the deliberative ideal, we argue that simple activism can be differentiated from deliberative activism by considering to what extent activists’ adhere to principles of reasonableness and dialogic responsiveness
Attention has been drawn to the boundaries of public deliberation by accentuating features of reasonableness and dialogic responsiveness in provocative art exhibitions, which was said to be a tough challenge for deliberative ideals
Summary
Deliberation and activism represent two contrasting ideals of citizen participation in politics. In contrast to Vilks’s provocation that was deemed unreasonable, mainly because Vilks did not follow up the claim directed against Muslims and Islamic laws, Ohlson Wallin proved willing to explain and defend the exhibition publicly and engaged in a dialogue with people and groups who identify as Christians but with different interpretations of what Christianity entails. This means that Ohlson Wallin instigated, and helped to sustain a dialogue in mass space about an important collective matter, namely a certain community’s attitudes toward homosexuality. This was a much more deliberative act than NUG’s Territorial Pissing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
