Framing Trials for Past Abuses Through an “Educative Dialogue”: Recovering the Formative Role of Conflict in a Democracy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Various thinkers of transitional democracy have attempted to justify trials for past state-sanctioned abuses by pointing to their ability to pedagogically showcase the principles and benefits of deliberation. 1 Such trials are thought to stage a public forum where post-conflict disagreements can be conciliated through an "educative dialogue" sustained by the consensual regulative principles inherent in court procedures.In this essay, I argue that an interpretative model that seeks to justify and understand such trials by emphasizing the effects of an "educative dialogue," that strives for social unanimity and mutual understanding, overlooks the formative pedagogical role that conflict plays in a democracy.I unravel this point by critically engaging with the conceptual shortcomings found in the work of Mark Osiel and Carlos Nino, two legal thinkers who respectively develop a deliberative pedagogical proposal from their reading of the 1985 Trial of the Military in Argentina.2 Given that their interpretation draws on certain philosophical assumptions regarding the way in which democracy and education are linked through deliberation, I begin with a gloss on how this link is generally conceived.I then examine how deliberation is envisioned by "transitional scholars" who concern themselves with the educative role that criminal trials play in a new democracy.Following my working through of Osiel and Nino's claims, I utilize "radical democracy" theory to offer another reading of the Trial of the Military, one that necessitates a more dynamic sense of the pedagogical and can account for the formative role of conflict and exclusions in reproducing and sustaining democratic subjectivity. DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION AND EDUCATIONBoth democratic deliberation and education are thought to provide an index and entry to the other through their social and interactive dimension.They are mutually presented as a process of communication and joint participation through which the discovery and reconstruction of a common task is undertaken.Varied thinkers such as Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson, Benjamin Levin, and Stephen Macedo believe that at the core of both deliberation and education we find an emphasis upon a shared social experience, one that supposes that people can change and grow in understanding through the active exchange of ideas.3 The dynamic process of participants shaping and transforming their position on an issue through deliberation and collective learning sharply contrasts with the prevalent "aggregative model" of defining democracy.In this model, individual interests are aggregated through the mechanisms of strategizing, coalition building, and voting, consequently rendering democracy -as C.B. Macpherson critically describes -into merely a means of registering "the desires of people as they are, not to contribute to what they might be or might wish to be." 4 Stripped of its dialogical dimension, democracy is thought to simply become a market mechanism: 10.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,081 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».