# Exegesis 3

## November 16th, 2020

-   Alright, it's a small session (6 people), but let's go ahead and start
    -   This session is really just to get you set up for the 3rd exegesis assignment, which, like the other assignments, will open at noon on Wednesday and be due Friday at midnight
    -   As per usual, make sure to review all the assignment requirements before you start writing, jot down some notes, find the connections you need in the book, then commit yourself to writing an outline and from there writing the whole thing out
        -   In previous exegeses, some issues that came up:
            -   Make sure to give SUBSTANTIVE, precise definitions that are grounded in the text itself; often philosophers use technical terms that don't line up with dictionary terms
                -   So, if Young talks about "the deliberative model of democracy," Young has a particular definition of that - give it to us!
            -   Remember, assumptions are things the author takes for GRANTED; if they offer an argument for it, it's not an assumption!
                -   Young, unlike Locke and Rousseau, states some assumptions explicitly, like that she's assuming critical theory is valid (starting from current political institutions rather than universal logic), that baseline democracy is a valid form of government, etc.
                -   There might also be less obvious assumptions; in many pieces of the work, for instance, Young seems to be very pragmatic and worried about if something works, rather than if proposals are ideologically consistent
                -   Similarly, Young approaches some questions in a sociological way, assuming that people find themselves in social structures that were not intentionally set up and can't be easily dissolved - which is a sharp contrast from social contract theory, that we can just annul a social contract and get rid of society
    -   So, any questions about Young's work in general? Or about the assignment?
        -   With deliberative democracy, Young is defining it in contrast with the aggregative model; instead of this minimal, market-style government where we try to avoid interfering in each other's lives and don't interact with one another and come/leave with the same preferences, in a DELIBERATIVE model we have to listen to other people's arguments and claims and potentially learn from one another in the process; there's a chance that people's ideas actually change in a deliberative model, and the deliberative model tries to account for where preferences come from
            -   Importantly, Young doesn't think the people have to have total consensus on the good (especially in large, diverse nations), but instead that we have this discussion and move forward in a more informed way, even if people still have disagreements
    -   So, let's move on to a practice passage: pg. 46

            "In contrast to this image, with Habermas, I advocate a decentered concept of democracy...the whole of which cannot come into view, let alone under decision-making control...not brought together under a unifying principle."

        -   "For the real exegesis, don't forget to review Chapter 1, because Young defines many of her terms there"
        -   So, immediate questions: what is the image this is in contrast with? It's "centered" democracy, the idea of the democratic process being "one big meeting" where everyone can hear each individual's views, and there's a single start-to-finish process for each decision
        -   What does she mean by "democracy"? In the introduction, she gives a definition - use it!
        -   In contrast to centered, what does a "decentered model" of democracy mean? She defines it in this passage: the process of democracy is not in a single set of institutions, but is across the entire society as a discussion
        -   What's "society"? Young seems to think society is an emergent property of people living together, with all its structure and other things
        -   "society is bigger than politics" - what does that mean?
        -   large and complex
        -   "social sectors" - what does that mean? Later in the paragraph, she alludes to Chapter 5, so it seems to imply civil society vs other ways of dividing up the state (regional groups, economy vs state, rich vs poor neighborhoods, etc.)
        -   "not brought together under a unifying principle" means this is not the "centered" democratic model, which

-   This book is quite different from Rousseau and Locke, but there will be a chance to revise this assignment and it isn't your first rodeo; I'm confident you'll do okay
    -   Remember, Locke and Rousseau were writing authoritative treatises (or trying to) on how political society begins, ends, and everything in between; Young is NOT doing that. This is a contemporary book of critical theory discourse of having more limited conversations about existing institutions, with a looser structure than the previous 2 works. It hangs together, and terms are consistent, but each chapter is almost a standalone essay

-   Alright, see you all next week on Monday!