Disenchantment and democracy : public reason under conditions of pluralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of the relationship between the disenchantment of the world and democracy is necessary in order to appreciate the source and scope of the contemporary challenge of pluralism. In the absence of indisputable markers of certainty and authority, the possibility of justice and social integration is predicted upon a form of public reasoning that enable citizens to work out the terms of their political association together. However, I argue that the dominant conceptions of public practical reasoning (John Rawl’s notion of public reason and Jürgen Habermas’ discourse ethics) end up imposing unjustified limits on the activity of exchanging public reasons. This has the effect of undermining public reason’s community-sustaining role. I suggest that a less constraining and more agnostic conception of public reason in terms of a focus on the activity of citizenship in which struggles within and over the terms of citizenship are taken to be a central feature of constitutional democratic political identity. In doing so, I seek to problematize the picture of social harmony prevailing in contemporary political philosophy. I then try to illustrate and to enrich this argument through a discussion of current debates around multiculturalism and the struggles for recognition of cultural minorities. Aboriginal politics in Canada is used as a case-study. The importance of the practice of citizenship, as opposed to the end-results, is stressed throughout the thesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".