Disabled Lives in Deliberative Systems

• Author: Afsoun Afsahi
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0090591720913093
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591720913093

Political Theory

2020, Vol. 48(6) 751 –776

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0090591720913093

journals.sagepub.com/home/ptx

Article

Disabled Lives in

Deliberative Systems

Afsoun Afsahi1

Abstract

This essay argues that the systemic turn in deliberative democracy has opened

up avenues to think about disabled citizenship within discursive processes. I

highlight the systemic turn’s recognition of the interdependence of individuals

and institutions upon each other in a system as key to this project. This

recognition has led to three transformations: (1) a more generous account

of deliberative speech acts and behaviors; (2) recognition of the role of

enclaves; and (3) incorporating the role of discursive representatives. These

changes normalize the participation of cognitively disabled individuals and

suggest institutional opportunities for more effective participation.

Keywords

deliberative democracy, cognitive disability, inclusion, systematic turn,

deliberative systems

We often think, talk, and write about disability in terms of a shortcoming or

deficiency in either body or mind. It is to be diagnosed, treated, and fixed.

Our everyday lexicon includes terms such as “crippled, afflicted, deficient,

inferior, defective, disordered, handicapped, feeble-minded, idiot, imbecile,

moron, lame, retard, spaz.”1 It is of little wonder that much of political theory

erases people with disabilities (PWDs) from discussions of equality, justice,

freedom, and democratic decision-making. Deliberative democracy is not an

exception.

1University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Afsoun Afsahi, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, Amsterdam, 1018 WV,

Netherlands.

Email: a.afsahi@uva.nl

913093PTXXXX10.1177/0090591720913093Political TheoryAfsahi

research-article2020

752 Political Theory 48(6)

This essay addresses the tension between cognitive disability and delibera-

tive democracy. Theories of deliberative democracy are built upon the discur-

sive participation of all affected. As Jürgen Habermas argues, “[t]he political

public sphere can fulfill its function of perceiving and thematizing encom-

passing social problems only insofar as it develops out of the communication

taking place among those who are potentially affected.”2 However, fulfilling

this principle runs into problems when considering community members with

cognitive disability. The democratic principle, therefore, is undermined by the

discursive principle. While a key concern, this tension has largely been left

unaddressed within the literature on deliberative democracy.

While acknowledging that we cannot simply theorize ourselves out of the

tension between deliberative democracy and cognitive disability, this essay

argues that the systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has opened up

avenues to think about disabled citizenship within discursive processes.3 The

systemic turn normalizes the participation of cognitively disabled (CD) indi-

viduals and suggests institutional opportunities for their effective participa-

tion. It begins with the acknowledgement that “no single institution can

perfectly maintain ideal deliberative standards”; instead, different “compo-

nents within a system can compensate for the deficiencies of other parts by

providing an interconnected outlet for deliberation.”4

The key contribution of the systemic approach to deliberation is the recog-

nition of the inherent interdependence of citizens as well as institutions on

one another.5 This recognition underpins three key transformations that have

opened up the space for us to consider and include the contributions of CD

individuals. First, since there is a division of labor, and different arenas of the

system work together, the systemic turn does not summarily dismiss nonde-

liberative or antideliberative behaviors. In fact, it considers the ways in

which they contribute to the overall quality of deliberation in the larger delib-

erative system. Second, the systemic turn recognizes the importance of sites

of enclave deliberation within an interdependent deliberative system and

incorporates their contributions into the larger system. Finally, the systemic

turn is more amenable to a rich conceptualization of discursive representation

as a way to get as close as possible to fulfilling the maxim of inclusivity and

the all-affected principle.

This essay begins with a discussion of the treatment of CD individuals

within theories of popular sovereignty, generally, and deliberative democ-

racy, specifically. I, then, give an account of the systemic turn, especially the

recognition of the interdependence of citizens and institutions upon each

other in deliberative systems. I follow this with a discussion of three transfor-

mations as a result of this recognition: expansion of the scope of “delibera-

tive” speech, incorporation of enclaves, and taking advantage of discursive