Public Reason Research Articles

Public Reason in Times of Corona: Countering Disinformation in the Netherlands.

Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.

Applying Rawls' Theory of Public Reason to Controversies over Parental Surrogacy.

Parental surrogacy remains a highly controversial issue in contemporary ethics with considerable variation in the legal approaches of different jurisdictions. Finding a societal consensus on the issue remains highly elusive. John Rawls' theory of public reason, first developed in his A Theory of Justice (1971), offers a unifying model of political discourse and engagement that enables reasonable citizens to accept policies that they do not necessarily support at a personal level. The theory established a promising framework for private citizens with distinct moral positions on the subject to find common ground and, in doing so, to negotiate a consensus regarding the degree and nature of regulation that is palatable to all rational citizens.

The Courage of Public Reason: Sergei Alexandrovich Tokarev as a Historiographer

S. A. Tokarev founded the Russian historiographical tradition, laying the conceptual framework for studying the history of Russian ethnography (its pre-Soviet period), and the origins and history of foreign ethnology. Here we regard historiography in its professional sense and not just as a functional appendage of scientific research. In the author’s interpretation, historiography is not only (and not so much) a narrative about the past, but rather an internal dialogue of science and its self-reflection, a refined form of research into the past and modernity. S. A. Tokarev’s appeal to this genre dates back to the turn of the 1940s–1950s, when a unique constellation of conditions for a successful historiographical search developed. These conditions were rooted both in the internal scientific dynamics (ethnography had acquired a stable status of an independent discipline and a high degree of maturity of professional discourse) and in external circumstances (here the ideological vector coincided with the public sentiment — the struggle against cosmopolitanism on the one hand and the legitimate pride of the victorious people on the other). In this context it was crucial to create a respectable historiographical tradition, which would highlight the significant (and in the Soviet era - the leading) role of Russian science in the global context. The author’s interest is not in the analysis of S. A. Tokarev’s historiographical concept, but rather in the circumstances and conflicts (interdisciplinary, political and ideological) surrounding the preparation and publication of vast historiographical works. The article touches upon the usually neglected topic about scientific preferences and the specifics of a scientist’s research strategy as a projection of his psychotype. Why was it Tokarev who make the historiographical breakthrough? How was the “research laboratory” of a Soviet scientist organized, constrained by the rigid framework of planning, by external (political and ideological) and internal (scientific community) censorship, and under conditions of chronic academic and teaching overload? These issues are of considerable scientific interest.

Linguistic Diversity, Global Epistemic Injustice, and Kantian Public Reason: Comments on Lu-Adler on Kant's Linguistic Orientalism

Linguistic Diversity, Global Epistemic Injustice, and Kantian Public Reason: Comments on Lu-Adler on Kant's Linguistic Orientalism

Rawlsian Public Reason and Climate Change: a Blueprint for Integrationist Justice

Rawlsian Public Reason and Climate Change: a Blueprint for Integrationist Justice

Consensus, Colonization, and Counterpower? Deliberative Democracy, Uncharted Evolution, and Its Potential to be Decolonized

The article explores the trajectory of deliberative democracy as a response to contemporary political challenges within liberal, representative systems, with the debate on the possible decolonization of this concept being among its latest theoretical developments. Anchored in mini-public-based experiments, deliberative democracy seems to be – for most scholars – the chief remedy for the prevailing political crises of late capitalism, although its embedding in a colonial imaginary poses a fundamental obstacle. This article maps the evolution of the concept of deliberative democracy and its implementation in the present day, contending that the Western adoption of deliberative ideals into feasible practices has selectively incorporated the notion of public reasoning while sidelining the anarchist and autonomous implications inherent in consensus-based frameworks, which are recognizable in Indigenous political practices. While decolonizing public deliberative processes toward subversive practices has recently been subjected to theoretical debate, we also examine instances such as bottom-up deliberations in forest occupations. These not only exemplify queer, inclusive, and democratic decision-making, but also harness deliberation as a tool to counter private, political, and police authority in a way that is unavailable for public deliberations. But the question remains, how feasible is it as a democratizing practice beyond such niches?

„ЧАША НЕГОТИНЦАˮ ОГЛАШАВАЊЕ У ЛИСТУ СРПСКА ВОЈСКА 1908–1912. ГОДИНЕ

In Serbia, as well as in other countries, during the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, including the war period of 1912–1918, more than twenty newspapers and magazines with military or predominantly military themes were published. Several magazines, such as Ratnik and Službeni vojni list, had the character of government gazettes. Most other magazines had the characteristics of independent, or more precisely, private periodicals, with a very short lifespan. One of the rare exceptions was the Serbian Army, published from 1908 to 1912. A common feature of all military papers, including official ones, was the lack of material resources. Subscriptions to individual newspapers, as the main source of their financing, were scarce, which due to the small number of subscribers, including irregular billing, was one of the main reasons for infrequent publication. Therefore, everyone, including the official military press, resorted to advertising as a supplementary source of funds. The analysis of the advertising space of the Serbian Army is an example applicable to practically all military magazines, with the emphasis that here, as in others, advertisements were very often not military-themed.

The accessibility of religious reasons: an emotion-based account

ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that the debate on the accessibility of religious reasons, as it exists within the public reason literature, has insufficiently identified what it is that makes a religious reason for political action accessible. I thus explore a new route of analysis, one that takes seriously how religious reasons can be accessed via emotion. Emotions, I claim, are not only a source of justification for believers, but they allow non-religious citizens to feel the force of religious reasons more than they otherwise would.

Silencing and world-making: commentary on Lu-Adler’s “Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other”

Silencing and world-making: commentary on Lu-Adler’s “Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other”

Linguistic diversity, global epistemic injustice, and Kantian public reason: comments on Lu-Adler on Kant’s linguistic Orientalism

Linguistic diversity, global epistemic injustice, and Kantian public reason: comments on Lu-Adler on Kant’s linguistic Orientalism

Deliberative Democracy in the Digital Age Opportunities and Challenges of Online Public Discourse

Deliberative democracy is a model of democracy in which decision-making processes are based on public participation, and public debate is prioritised. In this model, citizens make joint decisions through rational discussion and negotiation, and this process forms the basis of democratic legitimacy. As one of the main actors in 21st-century democracy debates, deliberative democracy aims to create more inclusive and fair policies by encouraging broad participation. In the digital age, the concept of deliberative democracy faces new challenges and opportunities. This study examines the intersection between deliberative democracy and digital technologies, focusing on how online platforms influence public discourse and democratic engagement. The core objective is to explore how digital technologies enhance inclusivity, speed, and scalability in deliberative processes while simultaneously raising concerns about misinformation, polarization, and exclusion. Drawing from the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy, which emphasizes rational discourse and public reasoning, the paper investigates the benefits and challenges that arise when deliberation moves online. Through case studies such as Iceland's crowdsourced constitution, global climate change discussions, and the role of social media during the 2020 U.S. election, the paper highlights how digital platforms facilitate rapid, large-scale deliberation but also contribute to political fragmentation and echo chambers. The study employs a qualitative research methodology, analyzing the impact of digital platforms on deliberative processes through literature reviews and case studies. The hypothesis is that while digital platforms offer significant potential for enhancing democratic deliberation by broadening participation, they also present new risks to the integrity of public discourse, particularly due to misinformation and the manipulation of algorithms. Ultimately, the paper argues that deliberative democracy must adapt to the realities of the digital age by integrating online and offline deliberation, fostering digital literacy, and establishing regulatory frameworks for transparency and accountability. The findings offer theoretical contributions to understanding the relationship between digital technology and democracy while also providing practical recommendations for enhancing the quality of digital public discourse.

Public reason, Kant, and kantians: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on public reason and the linguistic other

Public reason, Kant, and kantians: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on public reason and the linguistic other

SPECIFIC ISSUES REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF REAL ESTATE SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION FOR THE CAUSE OF PUBLIC UTILITY

In the last 20 years, the road infrastructure in Romania has expanded considerably and affected a significant number of natural and legal persons, owners of real estate located on the expropriation corridor. According to the Rejust database, in the last 10 years, annually, on average, approximately 4,000 files were created before the courts with expropriation as their object. In this article, we propose to present the legislative framework and particularities of the evaluation process of real estate properties subject to expropriation for reasons of public utility. The importance and actuality of such a theme was generated by the very large number of cases pending before the courts as a result of the dissatisfaction of the owners of buildings subject to expropriation for public utility reasons regarding the amount of compensation values granted. Also, at the level of the courts, there is a non-uniform practice regarding the method of drawing up evaluation reports. The study aims to review the procedures related to public interest expropriation and to create the premises for future research in the field.

What Is Democracy?

Abstract Modern democracies, including the United States, rely upon three normative elements: (1) rights expressing the dignity of the citizen; (2) law expressing a commitment to public reason; (3) elections as the method of selecting representatives. In each dimension, citizens are to see a representation of themselves as popular sovereign. Morality and law are not matters to be resolved at the polls. Yet, popular opinion, supported by contemporary social sciences, tends to reduce democracy to the third element. On this view, the higher the voter turnout, the better the democracy. In an age in which we worry as much about majority, as minority, tyranny, this view is not credible. A mob at the polls is still a mob even if it is a majority. An exclusive focus on quantification represents a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of democracy. Democratic politics includes an interpretive practice across the moral and the legal dimensions. It relies as much on persuasion as on proof. Recovery of a vibrant democratic life requires a renewed appreciation of a public humanities, not as a pastime but as way of living.

Introduction to the symposium on A Perfectionist Theory of Justice by Collis Tahzib

ABSTRACT This Introduction summarises some of the central arguments in Collis Tahzib’s important new book A Perfectionist Theory of Justice. It locates Tahzib’s contribution within the wider literature and highlights two distinctive features of his account. First, his incorporation of perfectionist considerations into his theory of justice. And, second, his perfectionist public reason liberalism.

From public health to political repression: COVID-19 lockdown measure in Hong Kong's opposition districts

Repression comes with costs, such as reducing regime legitimacy and citizen conformity. The COVID-19 pandemic was an opportunity and a pretext for authoritarian regimes to repress their populations at a low cost. This paper examines the case of Hong Kong, where restriction-testing declarations (RTDs) were used as a lockdown measure to facilitate mandatory testing for the virus from January 2021 to September 2022. Despite the government's claim that RTDs were implemented for public health reasons, statistical analyses showed that Hong Kong districts that opposed the regime or those with a mobilization legacy were more likely to be subject to RTDs, with the opposition district effect present only when COVID-19 infections were low. These RTDs highlight the authoritarian regime's tradeoff in using a nonpolitical measure to achieve its political aims and illustrates the enduring impact of past election and mobilization activities on the choice of selective repression sites in Hong Kong.

Kant, the scholarship condition, and linguistic racialization: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other

Kant, the scholarship condition, and linguistic racialization: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other

Debunking practices and topics: Fact-checking agencies from the United Kingdom, France and Spain

This study focuses on debunking social media hoaxes as a critical issue for both fact checkers and democracies, as it is partially linked to the international and geopolitical scope of disinformation. The objective is to compare the debunking practices of seven fact-checking agencies from United Kingdom, France and Spain classified by its international, national or regional scope: Les Observateurs (France), Logically (United Kingdom), Les Vérificateurs (France), Full Fact (United Kingdom), Newtral (Spain), Ferret Fact (United Kingdom) and Verificat (Spain). Explorative, descriptive and inferential statistical quantitative research based on the analysis of content over eight hundred posts between July and August 2023 was conducted. The results partly confirm the objective of debunking as preventing the spread of a story, since the public health approach based on verification (labelling as ‘false’ rather offering in-depth explanation) is the prevailing trend, irrespective of the section. Nevertheless, the public health or public reason approach depends on the agency, as some agencies – including the two French – provide more detailed explanations with clear public reason approach, even in the treatment of international conflicts. Results also show significant homogeneity in terms of the major issues covered (inclusion and migration, environment, health and science, international conflicts, etc.), although the relative weight of each section varies significantly in each agency, including those of the same scope.

Bridging science communication and open science—Working inclusively toward the common good

The 2020–2022 pandemic highlighted concerns about “information disorders”, pressing for approaches capable of guiding the science-society alliance toward a mutually beneficial direction. This essay advocates for and presents a framework proposing the combination of Open Science (OS) and Science Communication (SciComm) practices. OS encourages public access to scientific material, while SciComm has historically enabled public understanding of scientific knowledge. Despite their similar goals, these two communities are disconnected. We draw on the concepts of “boundary object” and “epistemic trust” to demonstrate how this framework could foster a bond between scientific expertise and public reason toward an informed and inclusive common good. The OS-SciComm framework is based on the notion that ensuring transparency in science also requires “bridging tools” that deal with the complexity of scientific lexicon and processes. It values scientific expertise, but does not undermine citizens' capabilities in information processing and their interest in accessing scientific outputs. Our proposal also acknowledges controversies involving open scientific materials during the COVID-19 pandemic and advises caution when drawing conclusions from cases that are often context-specific. The OS-SciComm framework requires innovative ideas, platforms and actions. We invite both communities to join us in this endeavor.

Freedom of Religion in Canada – The Principled and the Pragmatic

While much of Canada’s early commitment to religious freedom was simply a pragmatic compromise to ensure social peace and political stability, the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of judgments that pre-dated the Charter sought to articulate a principled account of religious freedom as an “original freedom” that is an important “mode[] of self-expression” and “the primary condition[] of the community life”. This understanding of religious freedom shaped the Supreme Court of Canada’s initial reading of freedom of conscience and religion protected by s. 2 (a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the story of religious freedom in Canada is not simply that of a linear progression from the pragmatic tolerance of religious minorities to the principled protection of the individual’s religious freedom. In its subsequent s 2 (a) decisions, the Court began to read freedom of religion as a form of equality right that requires the state to remain neutral in religious matters. The state must not prefer the practices of one religious group over those of another and it must not restrict the religious practices of a group unless it has a substantial public reason to do so. Underlying the Court’s commitment to religious freedom is a recognition of the deep connection between the individual and her/his spiritual commitments and religious community and a desire to avoid the marginalization of minority religious groups. Concerns about inclusion and social peace that lay behind the extension of religious tolerance in Canada’s early history continue to be important in the contemporary justification and interpretation of religious freedom. The Court’s commitment to state neutrality in religious matters requires it to distinguish between the private sphere of individual or group spiritual life and the sphere of public secular life. However, the line between these two spheres is contestable, moveable, and porous.