“the dewey-lippmann debate today: communication ...pages. ?· the dewey-lippmann debate today:...
Post on 06-Aug-2018
Embed Size (px)
The Dewey-Lippmann Debate Today: Communication Distortions,
Reflective Agency, and Participatory Democracy*
Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
In this article, I introduce the Dewey-Lippmann democracy debate of the 1920s as
a vehicle for considering how social theory can enhance the empirical viability of
participatory democratic theory within the current context of advanced capitalism. I
situate within this broad theoretical framework the theories of Habermas and Dewey.
In the process, I argue (a) that while Dewey largely failed to reconcile his democratic
ideal with the empirical constraint of large-scale organizations, Habermas, in parti-
cular his work on the public sphere, provides an important starting point for consider-
ing the state of public participation within the communication distortions of advanced
capitalism; (b) that to fully understand the relation between communication distor-
tions and public participation, social theorists must look beyond Habermas and return
to Dewey to mobilize his bi-level view of habitual and reflective human agency; and,
finally, (c) that the perspective of a Deweyan political theory of reflective agency best
furthers our understanding of potential communication distortions and public partici-
pation, particularly in the empirical spaces of media centralization and intellectual
From Mosca (1939) and Weber (1946) to Schumpeter (1950) and Lipset (1994), socialtheorists and political sociologists have long articulated a modern vision of democracyexplicitly designed to be compatible with complex, industrialized societies. This view ofdemocracy emphasizes stability, bureaucratic decentralization, and the competitiveelection of elites, while minimizing the role of public participation in the politicalprocess. This theory of democracy, variously termed democratic elitism (Bachrach1980) and competitive elitism (Held 1987), continues to enjoy a position of primacy,though not outright dominance, within empirically-based studies of democracy. WhilePatemans (1970) more than three-decade-old observation that democratic elitismrepresents an orthodox doctrine within democracy scholarship appears finally outdatedin light of a surge of important work on civil society (cf. Alexander 1993, 1990) and thepublic sphere (Eliasoph 1996; Calhoun 1992), a thorough investigation of the empiricalliterature on democratization, as well as a quick perusal of the establishment quarterlyJournal of Democracy, indicates that participatory models of democracy remain some-whatthough not entirely, as the cases cited above demonstratemarginalized within
*For reading earlier drafts and offering critical suggestions, I extendmy appreciation toGideon Sjoberg, DavidBraybrooke, Sharmila Rudrappa, Christine L. Williams, and Michael P. Young. I also thank four anonymousreviewers and the editors of Sociological Theory. Address correspondence to: Mark Whipple, Department ofSociology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sociological Theory 23:2 June 2005# American Sociological Association. 1307 NewYork Avenue NW,Washington, DC 20005-4701
mainstream empirical sociology.1 One significant reason for this marginalization isthat Weber (1946), by way of his gloomy iron cage thesis of instrumental rational-ism in modern society, has largely dictated the terms of the debate; participatorydemocracy, as a result, is often regarded as theoretically and, even more so, empiri-cally unviable in the midst of the growing complexity and bureaucratic rationalism ofadvanced capitalist society.
How, then, can social theorists enhance the perceived legitimacy of participatorydemocratic theory, that is, make participatory democratic theory more empiricallyviable within the current context of advanced capitalism? This article neither attemptsnor claims to definitively answer this question, but rather works within its frameworkto build upon the already existing evidence indicating that participatory democratictheory is enjoying a comeback. First, scholarly interest in John Dewey, an importantearly-20th-century theorist of participatory democracy, appears to be resurgent afterremaining dormant for decades.2 Three major intellectual biographies of Dewey werewritten in the 1990s. Deweys views on democracy play pivotal roles in each of thesebiographies. For example, one of the biographers, Westbrook (1991), presents in somedetail the public debate of the 1920s between Dewey and the journalist WalterLippmann, an articulate spokesperson for the elitist model of democracy. Second,the return of participatory democratic theory is further evidenced and advanced bythe work of Habermas (1987, 1984) and his attempt to counteract Webers gloom byconstructing an alternative view of modern rationality. Contemporary social theorists,drawing upon Habermass theory of communicative rationality, have in recentdecades begun to develop a theory of deliberative democracy that emphasizes thediscursive elements of political legitimacy (Benhabib 1996; Dryzek 1990).
This article builds upon both Dewey and Habermas in its attempt to understandthe contemporary potential for public participation in an advanced capitalist societycharacterized by large-scale organizations and corporate structures, specifically thecommunication distortions that arise in part from corporate control of informationproduction and distribution. To do so, we shall proceed in three sections. In the firstsection, the Dewey-Lippmann debate of the 1920s is presented not as an over-and-donehistorical event in the way that Westbrook (1991) largely approaches it, but as atheoretical framework that will serve as a point of departure toward exploring thepotential for public participation within the modern context of the growth of large-scaleorganizations. This objective leads us to critique and momentarily set aside the
1For works representative of the democratization literature, see Huntington (1991) and Diamond, Linz,and Lipset (1989). Many of the democratization scholars sit on the editorial board of the Journal ofDemocracy (2004), a privately-funded journal closely linked to the nonprofit, government-supportedNational Endowment for Democracy. One recent issue of the journal (October 2004) devoted sevenvaluable articles to debating the merits and limitations of a scholarly emphasis upon issues of democraticquality. However, the limitations of these articles, as well as the limitations of the more general literature ondemocratization, in exploring how to deepen the ways in which citizens experience democracy is revealed inthe consistent and unwavering privilege these authors tend to grant two theoretical worksSchumpeters(1950) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy and Dahls (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition,particularly favored among the Journal authorsthat together arguably serve as the theoretical foundationof democratic elitism. Tellingly, while participation as a democratic ideal is discussed at certain points, noneof the seven articles on democratic quality references a participatory democratic theoretical or empiricalwork.
2Social scientists at the end of the 20th century have reacquainted themselves not just with Dewey, butwith the American pragmatist perspective in general (Gross 2002; Caspary 2000; Sjoberg et al. 1997;Kloppenberg 1996; Diggins 1994; Joas 1993). This reawakening follows on the heels of five decades or soof disinterest in pragmatist thinking. As Westbrook (1991) and Gross (2002) point out, philosophydepartments following World War II took a decidedly positivist and analytical turn. The professionalizationand highly technical nature of philosophy were not conducive to pragmatisms ethical and social concerns.
THE DEWEY-LIPPMANN DEBATE 157
essentially normative approach of Dewey and engage with Habermas. In the secondsection, then, we turn to Habermas, though not to his recent work on communicativerationality. Instead, we examine primarily his much earlier investigation of publicpolitical life in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas 1989). Seen as Habermass most empirical work to date (Calhoun 1992), StructuralTransformation provides for us an invaluable first step in understanding the relationbetween social structural realities and public potential for democratic participation.Indeed, Habermas much more than Dewey furthers our empirical understanding ofthe social structural constraints under which democracy exists in advanced capitalismand in particular serves to introduce the problem of communication distortions. Butdespite the empirical focus of the book, its ability to enhance our social understandingof the relation between these distortions of communication and public participation islimited due to its narrow, closed-ended theoretical focus on consensus and rational-critical debate. In brief, I argue that rational-critical debate appears inherently sus-ceptible to system-level manipulation resulting from distortions of communicationand thus potentially contributes to the crisis of the public sphere as much as itpresents us with a way to combat it.
Thus, in the third section, I posit that social theorists can best confront the constraintsunder which democracy lives in advanced capitalism not through a Habermasian focuson rationality and consensus, but by returning to Dewey and building upon his bi-levelnotion of human agency, consisting of habitual and reflective intelligence. In doing so, webegin the work of constructing a political theory of agency, in which the sociologicalconcept governing the potential for broad public participation becomes neither rational-ity nor consensus, but reflective human agency. More specifically, seen this wa