# Young on Inclusive Discourse

## October 26th, 2020

-   Okay, there isn't a final project checkpoint this week, but make sure to work on revising your project statement/background from last week based on my feedback (when I get around to grading it)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Now, we're looking at a deliberative model of democracy that, essentially, splits the difference between Locke and Rousseau
    -   Locke's liberal, plebiscite democracy is "thin" and "light"; the main focus is on leaving the public alone and on trying to prevent injustices; there's little shared public vision or goals, but it has an advantage in that the people don't need to agree on very much to operate like this
    -   Rousseau's commitment to the common good is much more demanding on the citizen, and requires a shared understanding of society's goals
        -   "Young would probably classify this as a deliberative model, but as an extremely centralized and rigid one"
    -   Young is trying to revise this system to work for a continent-size multi-million person state, but while keeping this idea that deliberation is only legitimate if you include everyone who'd be affected by it

-   Today, in Chapter 2, Young is focusing on deliberation, and how that can be done in an inclusive way
    -   Rousseau talks about how important deliberation of the Sovereign/people is, but gives very little idea of how that practically happens; it's a black box how this deliberation actually takes place
        -   Young, following some previous philosophers like Habermas, tries to give an account of what's helpful or even necessary to have deliberation going on
        -   She's already articulated that legitimate discussion needs to be public, understandable by the public, and "reasonable" (i.e. people are open to being corrected/changing their minds) as PREREQUISITES to discussion
    -   Since Young sees inclusion as essential to democracy, it's CRITICAL that she addresses ways this inclusion doesn't happen
        -   EXTERNAL exclusion is keeping people out of the process/discussion entirely, e.g. by not allowing them to vote, denying them media time, etc.
            -   This is the big, scary obvious one
        -   INTERNAL exclusion is where people are technically allowed in the process, but their voice is dismissed for illegitimate reasons
            -   As an example of this, Young gives the idea that "norms of discourse" can unintentionally exclude people who don't know how to talk in this formal, detached, "politically correct" kind of speech; they get ignored not because of their arguments, but because they're "too flamboyant" or "too emotional"
            -   This ties into the idea of "technocracy," that we should let experts rule and leave everything to them - which is counter to many ideals of democracy
                -   It also ties into HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE, a form of exclusion that forces people to only talk about the world in a certain way and denies anything else *before* considering their arguments; "The clear scientific consensus is against your policy"
    -   Young says that while external exclusion receives a lot of attention, the internal stuff goes under the surface, so she presents 3 ways to try and make internal discourse more inclusive
        -   GREETING is just the act of acknowledging people and acknowledging issues; instead of being purely calm and detached, just saying something like "I know this is hard for X" or "I'd like to thank Y for inviting me to speak to Z"
            -   This is a way of connecting with people and letting them know that you're aware they're in the conversation and are making some effort to care about what they think
            -   Young considers this a prerequisite to further discussion: "I'm greeting you as an equal, recognizing you're a human, and letting you know we're in this together and I'm willing to talk"
        -   RHETORIC refers to recognizing that rhetoric isn't something we should try to get rid of and talk in pure logical syllogisms, but recognizing that different groups are "situated" somehow, and we should address them and their specific concerns and background when we speak to them
            -   It's also a 2-way street of recognizing people might talk with raw, emotional, or even upsetting rhetoric and still have valid points to make; "Defund the Police" is intended to be more provocative and raw than it actually means to get attention, and we shouldn't ignore the arguments because of the slogan
            -   Young's point here is that reacting by saying "that's too heated" or "that's not rational enough" can be a form of exclusion if we're not careful
        -   NARRATIVE (didn't get to this, but telling stories and recognizing them as a legitimate form of making a point)
    -   Young recognizes that all 3 of these can and have been used manipulatively

-   To be clear, Young DOES say we need arguments and factual claims at the end of the day, but we need to allow people to disagree with our facts and THEN try to show why they're wrong INSTEAD of just saying "I have the facts, you don't, I'm not even going to listen to you"
    -   We may have the facts, but how we respond to the facts isn't always clear; we don't always know the problems, and the solutions, the facts present for everyone
    -   "I hesitate to go this way, but to make a comment about recent politics...I was reading this book with students in 2016, the last election, and this chapter helped me partly understand why Hillary Clinton was having trouble connecting with voters. She presented herself as a consummate technocrat: 'I have a 17-point plan to fix this, I already know what to do, let me do this.' A lot of voters took that as condescending, as though she didn't care about them or their views."
        -   "She arguably was forced into this because, as a woman, she wouldn't have been taken seriously if she took a more passionate 'I feel your pain' view, since then people'd say she's too emotional, but still..."

-   "...so, I've talked a lot and held a hegemonic discourse in this class, so protest if I go over the line; in the meantime, we'll pick this up again on Wednesday"