Deliberative Democracy and the Corruption of Speech

This paper takes its point of departure from the observation that the language of corruption in democratic politics is pervasive — even in democracies regarded as relatively clean in global terms, such as (USA, Sweden, Canada). Charges of “corruption” regularly appear in the press — in commentary, in editorials. Public opinion surveys show that much of the public regards “politics” as in democracies as “corrupt.” Political scientists tend to view these findings as evidence of disaffection from politics generally, rather than any particular pathology that could be addressed through institutional change, reform, transparency, or other fixes. Indeed, because charges of corruption can rarely be evidenced — overt corruption is the exception rather than the rule — our tendency has been to treat such charges as indicators of other issues, such as citizen disaffection.I take charges “corruption” at face value by pursuing the common everyday meanings of such charges: citizens believe politicians dissimulate, they lie, they “serve themselves” rather than their constituents, they are insincere, and they are disingenuous. They speak in meaningless generalizations, or use formulas that evoke broad values while avoiding commitments. What is behind such charges, I suggest, is an everyday intuition into the centrality of promise and commitment in democratic politics. Indeed, this feature of democracy is its defining characteristic: it is what allows “politics” — collective decision-making and action in the face of conflict — to be conducted through talk rather than other possible means — coercion, tradition, or purely economic incentives. My key argument in this paper is that it is common for this defining medium of democracy to be “corrupted” — in the literal sense that agents fail, often strategically and even deceptively, to follow through the commitments implied in language use. Pragmatic approaches to language use shows that such commitments — “deontic scorekeeping” in Robert Brandom’s terms — are essential to the force of any linguistic act. If we understand this feature of language within the context of talk-based politics — conflict and strategy conducted through speech — we can see that democracy is particularly prone to the “corruption” of the commitments implied in language use. It follows that the key problem for democratic theory and practice is to find the mix of ethics, incentives, and institutions that protect this element of talk — commitment — from the intrinsic hazards of politics. This framing of the problem yet another way of understanding the project of deliberative democracy: It is comprised of institutions and practices which hedge against linguistic corruption.

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.