Deliberative Systems: the Danger of Discursive Depoliticization

(1)

Deliberative Systems: The Danger of Discursive

Depoliticization

Sophie Chevrot Bianco 12782157 June 2020

Supervisor: dr. Afsoun Afsahi Second reader: dr. Johan Olsthoorn

Master thesis Political Science Specialization track: Political Theory

(2)

(3)

Abstract

This essay addresses the issue of the exclusion of citizens from democratic processes in deliberative systems and the role of depoliticization in causing this exclusion. I claim that focusing on the recent concept of discursive depoliticization can lead to a better understanding of the deliberative systems vulnerability to processes of depoliticization. The resort to the notion of discursive depoliticization – a narrower understanding of depoliticization, which only comprises discourses of depoliticization - allows to unveil the mechanism through which elite discourses alter the procedure of deliberation itself. This alteration challenges the capacity of deliberative systems to (1) include citizens in decision-making, and to (2) include members of marginalized groups in the public debate. As a consequence, discursive depoliticization is a major threat to deliberative systems, especially when it comes to live up to the democratic ideal of an inclusive process.

Keywords: deliberative democracy, deliberative systems, discursive depoliticization, inclusion, structural oppression, political exclusion

(4)

Introduction

Social media are often praised for creating new and plural ways for citizens to take the floor and to participate in the public debate. Deliberative democracy, which is the dominant framework in normative democratic theory, relies on the principle of the ‘all affected’, which sets high standards for the participation of citizens since it holds that all citizens who are concerned by a decision should have a say in the decision-making process. The most recent development of this approach resorts to the notion of deliberative systems and emphasizes the plurality of forms that this participation may take. However, despite the increasing number of mediums available for participation, the crisis of democracy continues and intensifies: while it seems easier to take the floor, it seems also harder to really be heard, as the many anti-elite social movements testify.

This essay addresses the issue of the exclusion of citizens from democratic processes in deliberative systems and the role of depoliticization in causing this exclusion. Exclusion refers to a situation in which some individuals and social groups, cannot express their individual preferences, perspectives or practices, and therefore, cannot participate in the collective self-determination of social affairs. Depoliticization refers to the loss of ‘the political’ in contemporary democracies, or more explicitly, describes a situation in which elements that were traditionally political, such as issues, or the functions associated with, transform into something less political, or even becomes unpolitical. The study of this phenomenon has only been scarcely addressed in connection to the literature on deliberative systems. In this thesis, I attempt to fill this gap by assessing the role played by depoliticization in the exclusion of some social groups and individuals from the decision-making process in deliberative systems.

In this essay, I argue that focusing on the recent concept of discursive depoliticization can help to carry on a systemic evaluation of deliberative systems vis a vis the democratic ideal

(6)

of inclusivity. Discursive depoliticization is a narrower version of the notion of depoliticization, restricted to the discourses of depoliticization, which are understood as actors’ strategies in the context of public communication. This concept helps to undersntand the mechanism through which elite discourses can hack the procedure of deliberation: by negating the political character of decision-making, they narrow the audience’s perspectives and therefore prevent perspective-taking, which is crucial for collective opinion formation and at the core of deliberation.

This analysis of the mechanism of discursive depoliticization allows to understand the vulnerability of deliberative systems. The key contribution of this essay is to demonstrate that discursive depoliticization threatens democracy in the context of deliberative systems, specifically regarding the democratic ideal of an inclusive process. More specifically, the discourses of depoliticization can endanger the capacity of deliberative systems in two ways. First, it challenges the norm of inclusion; by leaving elites irresponsive to citizens’ claims, discourses of depoliticization exclude citizens from the decision-making process. Second, it questions the norm of political equality: by making claims of marginalized groups even more difficult to communicate to others, the discourses of depoliticization leave members of these groups out of the public debate and of the process of collective opinion formation.

This essay starts with a discussion of the concepts of deliberation and of depoliticization in the first chapter. I briefly introduce deliberative democracy theory, exploring the reasons why the ideal of deliberative democracy has come to be under fire in relation to the political exclusion of marginalized groups such as women. Then, I give an account of deliberative systems and I focus on the ways this approach has renewed the path towards inclusion and political equality. After briefly presenting the general concept of depoliticization, I discuss more extensively discursive depoliticization, exemplifying the ways by which discourses of

(7)

depoliticization can negate the political character of public decision-making through the case of the self-help discourse in in the context of unemployment policies.

In the second chapter, I investigate the relationship between discursive depoliticization and deliberative systems, starting my argument with an analysis of Claudia Landwehr’s work (2017). While I acknowledge the strengths of her work, I argue that it presents some shortcomings and I attempt to address them in my second section, by showing how the mechanism of discursive depoliticization can generate difficulties within the procedure of deliberation in itself. Then, I introduce my case study on the political treatment of domestic abuses in France, showing how the discourse of ‘emprise’ represents an instance of discursive depoliticization. Illustrating with examples from this case study, I finally outline that discursive depoliticization can endanger the democratic capacities of the systems by fostering the political exclusion of, in this case, women, in two different ways. First, I show that discursive depoliticization breaks the communicative process between elites and citizens and leaves citizens’ claims out from decision-making, undermining the importance of participation as well as the legitimacy of decisions. Second, I demonstrate that the discourses of depoliticization construct dominant norms from dominant groups’ perspectives and create ‘interferences’ between dominant narratives and the hermeneutical resources of marginalized groups, therefore silencing their claims in the public debate.

(8)

Chapter 1 - The concepts of deliberation and depoliticization

What is Deliberative Democracy?

Deliberative democracy has become the main trend in democratic theory, in particular, since the deliberative turn in the 1990s. Habermas’ work has greatly contributed to establish deliberative democratic theory1_{. Today it is a wide corpus, encompassing very different}

theoretical stances. Theorists have undertaken multiple transformative projects of deliberative democracy, which have led to major theoretical developments such as the empirical turn (Fishkin, 1995; Mutz, 2002; Steenbergen et al., 2003)2_{, the institutional turn (Fisher, 1993;}

Gastil, 2000)3_{and, finally, the systemic turn (Mansbridge and Parkinson, 2012; Kuyper,}

2015)4_{. However, despite important differences, none of these approaches depart from the main}

focus of deliberative democracy, i.e., the role of deliberation in decision-making.

The core of deliberation is to enhance “the communicative processes of opinion and will-formation that precede voting” (Chambers 2003: 308). More precisely, deliberation is the procedure in which participants rationally test and evaluate propositions through critical arguments (Habermas, 1996; Chambers, 1996). Put another way, deliberation is the procedure of adjudicating between different perspectives or viewpoints in order to reach consensus or -

1_{Other important authors, for instance Rawls or Cohen, have contributed in establishing deliberative} democratic theory.

2_{The empirical turn refers to the moment when proponents of deliberation democracy went from highly} abstract debates on normative questions to empirical investigations on actual deliberations in order to test the assumptions of deliberative democratic theory.

3_{The institutional turn focuses on the study of organized and institutionalized deliberation. In this turn,} scholars have investigated deliberation within institutions or secluded settings and have contributed to implement institutions, such as mini publics, aiming at enhancing the right conditions for deliberating. 4_{The systemic turn has launched the - now prominent approach - in terms of deliberative systems. It} attempts to surpass the micro-level analyses of deliberation, focusing on individual institutions or deliberative behaviors, and to look at the overall political context.

(9)

at least – agreement on norms, policies or more generally on action principles, in the context of disagreements.

The model of deliberative democracy necessitates ensuring the inclusivity of the procedure in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the outcomes. The main aim of deliberation is to reach mutual justification, meaning that the political order is legitimate when it is justified to all the subjects of law. This objective relies on the application of the ‘all-affected principle’, which requires that “all those affected by a political decision ought, directly or indirectly, to have a say in its making” (Näsström 2011: 117). In the same vein, Habermas’ discourse principle states that “only those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons agree as participants in rational discourses” (Habermas, 1996).

Therefore, theorists have sought to formalize 'how to' deliberate in order to reach the democratic ideal. They have established rules for democratic deliberation, which initially derive from Habermas’ ‘discourse ethics’, such as the discourse quality index (Steenbergen et al, 2003) that serves as a quantitative measure of discourse quality in deliberation. The procedure of deliberation should be evaluated and of sufficient quality against several dimensions: there should be open participation, sufficient justification, respect, authenticity, and an interest towards reaching the common good (Ibid, 2003). These requirements are held to particularly high standards, especially in terms of political participation.

The ‘all-affected’ principle expands the scope of the citizens who should access the claim-making function. The deliberative model is especially demanding in terms of political inclusion (Young, 2002). More precisely, it requires political inclusion in the stronger sense of the term – i.e, political equality. It follows that, in order to ensure the ‘all affected equal participation’, political inclusion should promote citizen’s equal rights to express their concerns, equal opportunities to speak and freedom from domination (Young, 2002). It is ensured by a set of rules, such as summarized by Steenberg et al (2003: 25):

(10)

First, there should be open participation. Every competent individual should be free to take part in the discourse. Thus, everyone should be allowed to introduce any assertion into the debate. Moreover, everyone should be able to express his/her attitudes, desires, and needs. No one should be prevented from exercising these rights due to internal or external coercion. Even the rules and procedures of the discourse should be open for discussion.

Finally, deliberation of sufficient quality should encourage “broaden perspectives, toleration and understanding between groups, and a public-spirited attitude” (Chambers 2003: 2). More specifically, this argument points to the crucial role of ‘perspective-taking’, which is the act of perceiving a situation from an alternative point of view or, “actively imagining others’ experiences, perspectives and feelings” (Muradova 2020: 4). This mechanism leads to empathy with others, to “a broadened sense of people’s own interests” (Mendelberg in Muradova 2020: 4), and to make “each other’s good their own” (Mansbridge in Muradova 2020:4). Deliberation enhances or even forces perspective-taking because it necessitates to confront various perspectives to produce solid testing, and to surpass potential disagreements to produce result. As a consequence, while participating in deliberation, citizens reflect on or even change their initial positions to pursue and break any potential stalemate in discussions (Chambers, 1996), eventually creating a virtuous circle and becoming more reflective citizens.

The Issue of Exclusion

Deliberation democracy has come to be under fire. Often compared with the adversary model of agonistic democracy, which “calls for a clash of legitimate democratic political positions” (Mouffe 2005: 30), deliberative democracy’s main challenge is regarding pluralism and

(11)

difference. Deliberative democracy is “intended precisely to allow for plural viewpoints to be heard and adjudicated. Yet, (…) (some) have accused it of erasing difference” (Kapoor 2002: 469). The critiques come from critical theorists or political scientists, but their main concern is the same: the theory has been blind to the “inability of marginalized groups to even minimally meet the conditions of discourses” (Chambers, 2003: 322). More precisely, not only women but also people of colors, members of deprived groups, LGBTQI+ people, indigenous people, etc., are systematically kept out of the procedure of deliberation.

The political arena as well as the public sphere in which deliberation takes place, are not only spaces historically dominated by the dominant groups of society, and mainly, white bourgeois men (Fraser, 1990), but the practices developed within these spaces are largely associated with the practices of these dominant groups. Regarding deliberation, the participants are required to bring their perspectives in a specific way to ensure that all participant understand the claims which are being made. The main authors of deliberative democracy emphasize the role of reason in guaranteeing the intersubjective recognition of claims: participant should give reasons to underpin their claims and generally, should argument rationally (Benhabib, 1992; Habermas,1996, Chambers, 1996). Yet, deliberative processes, through their emphasis on reason, ‘operate to the advantage of dominants and to the disadvantage of subordinates’ (Fraser 1990: 72, also see Sanders, 1997)

First, the standards of deliberation require practices, which disfavor the expression of marginalized groups. Favoring argument-based discourses which require generally accepted premises and a common conceptual normative framework over other types of speeches or discourses such as storytelling, deliberation gives an advantage to dominant groups, which are more likely to master this type of public speaking (Young, 2002). Moreover, deliberation favors communicative norms such as articulateness and dispassionateness (Ibid.). Yet, it is unlikely that marginalized groups can express their perspectives calmly and clearly in

(12)

deliberation. As argued by Barnes (2008), the participation of marginalized groups is motivated by “charged negative experiences, but also by anger at experienced injustice” (466) and then, their emotions are central to their political engagement and could threaten the marginalized groups’ abilities to remain ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ in the context of deliberation.

More importantly, even when marginalized groups express their perspectives in the appropriate ways, the procedure of deliberation fuels prejudices that can disfavor marginalized groups. First, dominant groups dismiss the participation of marginalized groups, stigmatizing their claims as ‘unreasonable’ since “the contingency of (the) judgement (that another argument are reasonable) is strongly conditioned by membership in groups structured along the lines of social privileges and disadvantages” (Williams 2000: 137). More generally, the empirical studies focusing on the exclusion of women, have shown how the social status of women disqualify them in the procedure of deliberation. Even if women are more likely to engage in behaviors facilitating the procedure of deliberation, they are also more likely to be interrupted and to lose their influence in the debate (Mendelberg et al, 2014). Moreover, Mendez and Osborn (2010) argue that the perception of a lack of knowledge rather than the objective lack of knowledge plays a role in setting barriers to participation in politics, and that women are always perceived as having less knowledge than men, independently of their actual level of knowledge.

Therefore, deliberation favors the exclusion of marginalized groups, which is inconsistent with the principle of the ‘all-affected’. It seems that deliberation is incapable to live up to the standards of inclusion and thereby to create the conditions in order to ensure democratic legitimacy in the context of inegalitarian, divided, or plural societies. More fundamentally, the critics of deliberative democracy question if there is really anything democratic in deliberation or if it is favoring elitist model of democracy by legitimating the rationalization of marginalized groups’ perspectives and claims (Sander, 1997). Many scholars

(13)

have offered solutions to soften this problem (Young, 2002, Deveaux, 2003; Dryzek, 2005, etc.), but looking at these solutions is beyond the scope of this essay and I now focus on the approach in terms of deliberative systems, which, crucially, changes the normative understanding of what deliberation is.

The Advantages of Deliberative Systems

Finally, I will rely on a system-level account of deliberative democracy for the rest of this essay because this approach provides some solutions to the issue of political exclusion. I now give a brief overview of the systemic approach of deliberative democracy.

The systemic turn gives a better picture of today’s democracies and better represents their complexity, encompassing a wide variety of interdependent democratic components such as informal networks, the media, organized advocacy groups, schools, foundations, private and non-profit institutions, legislatures, executive agencies, and the courts (Mansbridge et al 2012). This enlargement of what counts as democratic within deliberative democratic theory relies on the central idea of the systemic turn: deliberative democracy should be evaluated based on the evaluation of the political system as a whole and not on the evaluation of the quality of deliberation within single institutions. The system ought to ensure three functions: the epistemic, ethical and democratic functions, in order to reach deliberative democratic ideals (Ibid.).5_{Yet, each component of the system should not be held accountable for performing all}

of these functions individually, but it is the system as a whole, which should reach the democratic ideal through labor division and cooperation between these different components.

5_{According to Mansbridge et al (2012), the epistemic function refers to ‘the production of decisions,} opinions, and preferences that take into consideration relevant information’; the ethical one to the ‘promotion of mutual respect’ and finally, the democratic one to ‘the promotion of an inclusive political process in terms of equality’ (Ibid:11).

(14)

Then, the framework of deliberative systems is adapted to the context of mass democracies since the broader understanding of deliberation ensures the inclusion of citizens in political processes. If each and every citizen cannot physically access decision-making through individual institutions or single forums to participate in decision-making, yet the ‘mass’ can access decision-making through the communicate processes in the public and private spheres or the arenas outside of the domain of formal politics6_{. These spaces take into}

account not only deliberation but also public communication, which refers to the more inclusive because “less structured by rules, participants or moderators” (Searing et al, 2007: 589) political discussions, therefore, helping to perceive and identify the claims and the problems of society as a whole.

More fundamentally, the framework of deliberative systems takes into account the previous critiques towards deliberative democracy and acknowledges that granting citizens formal equal rights does not equate to substantive equality due to the fact that people with more power, enabled by institutional conditions, can dominate in any open conflicts and set the agenda (Solt, 2008). Therefore, this systemic turn seeks to implement the right institutional conditions. As “creating new democratic spaces is not in itself enough to erase the embedded cultural dispositions and styles of politics that are often as inimical to women’s (or to marginalized groups’) participation as those in formal political arena” (Cornwall and Goetz, 2005), the systemic turn recognizes a few democratic innovations, which aim to help marginalized groups to express their views (Mansbridge et al, 2012). First, it promotes the role of enclaves, which refer to non-open spaces where marginalized groups can formulate their perspectives more easily because they are protected from the dominance of privileged groups

6_{Habermas’ dual-track approach (1996) offers the same understanding of deliberative democracy,} based on different and specialized spaces and on a decentralized political system, encompassing the public sphere.

(15)

(Fraser, 1992). Moreover, it accepts the possibility of discursive representation, which consists in representing the different discourses in society rather than people, and therefore, can facilitate the representation of the ideas and perspectives of marginalized groups (Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2008). Finally, the systemic turn challenges the traditional style of politics by recognizing that contributions to deliberation are valid not only through the form of a rational and demanding argumentation but also when they take less conventional forms, including non-deliberative speech acts such as protests or partisan journalism (Mansbridge et al, 2012).

In the end, deliberative systems may empower the members of marginalized groups to the extent that they would have the same influence on decision-making than more privileged citizens. Thus, though each and every citizen does not have the same ability to engage in deliberation, “across a deliberative system, (…) equally deep knowledge among citizens is not a pre-requisite of the development of meaningful deliberation” (Kuyper 2015: 56, see also Chambers, 2013). However, while the systemic turn seems to renew the ideal of deliberative democracy, guaranteeing that all parties concerned by a given issue can equally express themselves on the subject within the political process, the success of deliberative systems in subjugating the problem of exclusion is debated in the literature (Parkinson, 2012). For instance, people at the intersection of two or more disempowered identity markers are systematically left out of the democratic innovations mentioned above (Wojciechowska, 2020). I will now turn to another challenge regarding the ideal of inclusivity of deliberative systems, that theorists have left unaddressed and which relates to the effects of discursive depoliticization.

Understanding Depoliticization

Depoliticization is an age-old phenomenon, and theorists have identified depoliticization at different periods. Though the definition of the concept is extensive, today, depoliticization, is

(16)

considered as an essential concept for the critical analysis of political institutions, actors, and ideas. Broadly, depoliticization describes the processes by which something previously considered as political, transforms into something less political, or even becomes unpolitical. It can take different forms and scholars identify three different types of processes, namely, governmental, societal, and discursive depoliticization (Wood and Flinders, 2014). 7_Although

my argument is in line with the view that politicizing and depoliticizing processes are intertwined (Hay 2007; Wood 2014; Wood and Flinders 2017, Maia, 2017), henceforth, I focus on the depoliticization aspect. Moreover, while my focus is on the concept of discursive depoliticization as a political act, I give a brief description of each process of depoliticization in this section.

Governmental depoliticization refers to “the transfer of issues from the governmental sphere to the public sphere through the ‘delegation’ of those issues by politicians” (Wood and Flinders, 2014: 165) to other actors such as experts or non-elected representatives of private organizations or transnational institutions. The typical example of such a process is the European governments’ decision to delegate the monetary policymaking to the independent central banks.

Societal depoliticization relates to the transition of issues from the public to the private sphere, and therefore corresponds to the “privatization of issues or functions” (Wood and Flinders, 2014: 157). In other words, formerly public issues become private matters, and their treatment does not involve collective decisions and actions anymore but is left to the individuals’ discretion. For example, the societal depoliticization of unemployment corresponds to the privatization of unemployment: it is increasingly handled through the

7_{This classification, theorized by Wood and Flinders (2014), relies on Hay’s work (2007). Hay (2007)} also identifies three types of depoliticization that he calls ‘depoliticization of type 1’ for governmental depoliticization, ‘depoliticization of type 2’ for societal depoliticization and ‘depoliticization of type 3 for ‘discursive depoliticization.

(17)

implementation of individual solutions such as skills training or coaching, rather than through global economic measures aiming at changing the labor market conditions.

There are two understandings of discursive depoliticization. The broader definition refers to the transfer of issues from the political realm to the ‘realm of necessity’ (Hay, 2007; Wood and Flinders, 2014). This view contrasts the political arena - i.e. the governmental, public and private spheres – in which social and political conditions are the results of humans’ decisions, to the arena of necessity, in which social and political conditions are a priori determined and are not depending on human will. Hence, the transfer of issues towards the realm of necessity ends the political treatment of the issues: they go from being addressed in one or all of the spheres to be unaddressed, and they become unpolitical.

In the stricter sense, discursive depoliticization consists in “a political act” (Jenkins 2011: 160). Indeed, the transfer of issues from the political realm to the ‘realm of necessity’ is rarely due to structural conditions but more likely is the result of political strategies. The focus of this thesis is this more restrictive view, i.e., the political act of discursive depoliticization. In the next section, I provide a brief account of this stricter version of discursive depoliticization.8

Discursive Depoliticization In Public Communication

I focus now on the more critical and more recent understanding of discursive depoliticization (Jenkins, 2011; Wood and Flinders, 2014, 2017).

Discursive depoliticization is a real-world practice spanning across the political arena, and discourses can be initiated in the governmental, societal and private spheres (Wood and

8_{I am aware of the interaction between the processes of depoliticization and the political act of} discursive depoliticization. However, exploring both goes beyond the scope of this essay, and I, therefore, focus on the latter, which is more scarcely discussed in the literature.

(18)

Flinders, 2017; Hay, 2007). Discursive depoliticization underlines the role of ideas and language in the processes of depoliticization, but all processes of depoliticization - including governmental and societal - have an ideational level: they change our representations around a given issue and transform or even shrink the range of available solutions related to this issue. For instance, the privatization of solutions tackling unemployment goes hand in hand with the diffusion of the understanding of employment as an individual phenomenon.

What is more specific to discursive depoliticization is the role of discourses in any process of depoliticization. Discourse is “a set of categories and concepts embodying specific assumptions, judgments, contentions, dispositions and capabilities” (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008: 481). Since they have the capacity to both enable and limit people’s perspectives, they “constrain people’s interpretation of the world, limiting the possible ways of thinking and talking about political issues” (Boswell 2013: 622). Hence, discourses underpin depoliticization.

An example of the importance of discourse in depoliticization is the role of the self-help discourse in the context of the privatization of unemployment policies (Sharone, 2007). It “attempts to professionalize all traditional job search activities (…) (and) it asserts that succeeding in the job of job searching is fully within the control of the individual job seeker” (Ibid: 407). Here, the use of self-help discourse reinforces the societal depoliticization of unemployment policies because it bolsters the interpretation of unemployment as an individual issue: unemployment results from the individuals’ lack of skills or lack of efforts in job-searching. Put differently, if unemployed individuals work on themselves and are willing to improve, they will succeed at finding a job.

(19)

There exist different types of discourses of depoliticization.9_{In the rest of this essay,}

my focus is on the discourses or speeches that take place in the context of public communication, and especially, when practiced by elitesin order to discursively negate the political character of decision-making (Wood and Flinders, 2017). This definition relies on the conception of the political developed by Gamble (2000), and then applied to depoliticization by Hay (2007) or by Jenkins (2011)10_{. In this conception, the political is “the capacity for}

agency and deliberation in situations of genuine collective and social choice” (Hay 2007: 77). The capacity for agency precisely refers to the ability to make a choice among alternative options. By negating the fact that political decisions are the results of choices, the types of discourses I consider convey the idea that decisions were bound to happen because there is only one alternative, therefore denying individuals their capacity for agency.

Going back to the example of unemployment policies, the self-help discourse negates the political character of decision-making by affirming that the decision to resort to skill training or coaching is the only option, though other solutions, such as relocalizing manufacturing industry or limiting the number of working hours per person, are available. Policymakers have decided to favor individual solutions over global measures, but, through discursive depoliticization, they make it look like the only possible course of action. This highlight the very nature of discursive depoliticization: the negation of the existence of alternative options.

The study of discursive depoliticization unveils the rhetoric and linguistic mechanisms by which discourses can operate this negation. A broad definition is that negation occurs when

9_{In this regard, Wood and Flinders include various frameworks in their study of discursive} depoliticization. For instance, they mention Habermas’ work on scientism, Foucault’s work on governance, or again the study of the rhetoric of securization. Each introduces variations regarding the discourses that enter into the category of the discourses of depoliticization.

10_{It exists a debate around what ‘political’ means but exploring the various conceptions of the political} goes beyond the scope of this analysis. See Beveridge (2016) to clarify the assets and limits of the three conceptions of the political regarding the study of depoliticization.

(20)

discourses “(promote) one issue, but alongside a single interpretation” of society (Wood and Flinders 2014: 161), and therefore, obscure alternative plausible interpretations. Wood and Flinders (2017) have started to clarify how the negation is operated in the context of elite discourses. First, one interpretation of the current situation is presented as the rule. Second, it appeals to “historical evidence about how (this rule or law) has proved superior to other ideas, and ends by recalling ‘a fantasy of what might be achieved were the rule to be followed, or what catastrophe might ensue were the rule to be violated” (Ibid 2017: 610). In the end, these rhetorical mechanisms naturalize one unique reading for a given issue.

For instance, in the case of unemployment, discourses affirm that the decision to resort to skill training or coaching is the only option. The promotion of individual solutions as the unique response to unemployment relies on the assumption that the labor market conditions cannot be changed. Though alternative discourses could propose a different rule, for instance by promoting relocalization, the rhetorical process makes delocalization appears as necessary, which automatically rules out the possibility of relocalization. In this example, the denying discourse could for instance start by recalling that, in the past, repeated economic crises have supposedly shown the limitation of the economic model based on the national industry (historical evidence), and go on by depicting the potential loss of competitiveness caused by relocalization, ultimately leaving companies with no choice but layoffs, and in short, more unemployment (catastrophe in case of rule violation). These types of discourses deny that favoring individual solutions was – and still is – a political decision made to favor national competitiveness on the global market, consistently with the neoliberal economic views that have been dominant since the 80’s.

But does the negation of agency reduce actual agency? Jenkins underscores that discursive depoliticization speaks, first and foremost, of “aspectival captivity, or the problem of restricted consciousness” (Jenkins 2011: 170), suggesting that the negation of agency in

(21)

discourses might indeed shrink it in reality. As mentioned previously, when discourses diffuse the idea that there is only one available interpretation and solution for an issue, they may influence the social reality to the extent that people come to consider that the collective must act in one unique way. Sharone (2007) puts in evidence that job seekers engage in individual behaviors, such as reading of self-help books, rather than in collective actions aiming to change the structural conditions on the labor market. She argues that it results from the self-help discourse promoting the idea that job seekers control their economic destiny, therefore fostering a feeling of guilt or shame for not finding a job, and leading jobseekers to blame themselves.

I reckon that the existence of depoliticizing discourses does not automatically foretell the negative effects of such discourses on individual agency. First, it depends on the extent on their diffusion, and second, on the iterative process between speakers and the audience (Wood and Flinders, 2017), which could in some cases lead to the rejection of the discourses by the audience. However, I argue that despite the lack of evidence on a systematic empirical relationship between discourses and individual agency, there is a need for a theoretical exploration of the consequences of political discursive depoliticization. Therefore, in the rest of this essay, I investigate whether discourses of depoliticization represent a threat for deliberative systems.

(22)

Chapter 2 - Discursive depoliticization in Deliberative Systems

The Issue of the Irreversibility of Decisions and Beyond

Theorist have analyzed the relationship between depoliticization and deliberation. Some have raised their concerns towards this relationship, denouncing the depoliticizing effects of deliberation (Mouffe, 1999), while others have defended that deliberation could benefit from depoliticization (Pettit, 2004). However, in more recent works, scholars have continued to investigate the relationship and have adopted the understanding of discursive depoliticization in the sense of discourses of depoliticization, as well as the approach in terms of deliberative systems (Maia, 2017; Landwehr, 2017). I particularly focus on Claudia Landwehr’s article « Depoliticization, Repoliticization and Deliberative Systems » (2017), since it points out why discursive depoliticization is problematic for deliberative systems. However, I will demonstrate that Landwehr’s analysis ignores the complexity of deliberation.

Landwehr’s work (2017) is a defense of deliberation against its critiques, which are concerned with the ambiguous relationship between depoliticization and deliberation. In contrast, she explains that this interpretation is based on a misconception of deliberation and she defends that the idea that deliberation ought to be a form of politicization as well as the political mode of interaction par excellence in collective decision-making (Ibid). Landwehr highlights that the coordinative function of deliberation makes it resolutely political since it underscores the deliberation’s objective “to reach agreements and collectively binding decisions” (Ibid: 53). As a result, she argues that deliberation is, above all, a way to face the responsibility that the collectives have in contingent situations (Ibid).

Landwehr recognizes that the mode of interaction in decision-making is not always deliberative in political systems: as an example, anyone who “offers to relieve citizens of the

(23)

demand to consider different perspectives, to listen to other voices, and to see both sides of a conflict seeks to depoliticize decision-making” (Ibid: 58). She adopts the systemic account of deliberative democracy with ‘critical intentions’: deliberative systems’ framework serves her to assess whether or not political system favors problematic depoliticized (and thus non-deliberative) mode of interaction (Ibid). Thereafter, she specifies when and how depoliticization is problematic for democracy in deliberative systems.

Landwehr’s (2017) central point is the following: discursive depoliticization is problematic for democracy because of the way it addresses the principle of reversibility. She states that “the yardstick for deliberative and democratic qualities of the system (…) is whether it is possible to repoliticize any issue and to initiate new deliberation and decision-making” (Ibid: 61). Put another way, the important criterion to guarantee the democratic qualities of deliberative systems is whether or not a decision is reversible in the long term. Hence, the author incriminates discursive depoliticization (Ibid) in the loss of democratic qualities, which changes the perception of the nature of political decisions, by making them appear no longer as choices but as necessities. Furthermore, the shift impinges upon the ability of citizens to engage in new deliberations, to consider other options and then, to reverse previous decisions (Ibid). In her case on the European monetary policy, she demonstrates that the delegation of the state’s monetary function to independent central banks is no longer perceived as a choice since the independence of central bank choice is now seen necessary in all contexts (Ibid).

Landwehr (2017) provides one solution, relying on the implementation of meta-deliberations on the design of institutions. She suggests that the current problem of discursive depoliticization is due to the structural constraints; which limit deliberation. Put differently, the current institutional design of the decision-making procedure favors discursive depoliticization (Ibid). Hence, meta-deliberations may help to re-politicize institutional design. By calling into question and publicizing the reasons behind any democratic innovations, they may underscore,

(24)

the fact that the institutional design is a matter of choice and may lead to question, and to change the design of current decision-making procedures.

It is my perception that Landwehr’s work provides solid foundations to understand the role of discursive depoliticization in deliberative systems. Mainly, her work underscores the effect on the process of decision-making. However, I contend that her analysis misses an essential part of the relationship between discursive depoliticization and deliberative systems. My first argument is that Landwehr does not explore the role of discursive depoliticization on deliberation itself. While she defends that the process of discursive depoliticization prevents from further deliberation, she does not consider the possibility in which the discourses of depoliticization take place within deliberation. My second point is that Landwehr does not explain how the discursively depoliticized issues goes from being a shift in the perception of the nature of political decisions to resulting in the full closure of decision-making. The systemic turn broadens the understanding of deliberation, highlighting that it relies not only on the political processes in the governmental sphere but also on debates occurring in the private and public spheres. It remains unclear in Landwehr’s theory how the discursive depoliticization of issues, which shifts the perception of the political decisions on these issues, contaminates the overall public debate and paralyzes the political system.

To sum up, I have outlined some gaps in Landwehr’s analysis. I suggest deepening our understanding of the complex relationship between discursive depoliticization and deliberative systems, by first reflecting on the mechanism of discursive depoliticization in the context of deliberation, and, then, re-evaluating the effects of discursive depoliticization on deliberative systems.

(25)

Deliberation and The Mechanism of Discursive Depoliticization

In this section, my focus is on the mechanism of discursive depoliticization and I demonstrate that discursive depoliticization creates problems within the procedure of deliberation itself.

What is the fundamental role of deliberation in democracy? In his defense of a problem-based approach of democratic theory, Warren (2017) calls for recognizing the specific role of different practices in democratic systems and admitting the weaknesses and strengths of every practice that seeks to fulfil democratic goals. Warren affirms that deliberation’s first role is to enhance the formation of collective agenda and will in democratic societies. Only in a second time, and under certain conditions, can deliberating facilitate empowered inclusion and collective decision-making (Ibid, 2017). Therefore, deliberation is crucial for democracy because it enhances collective opinion and will formation, through a rational process, which preceding decision-making, embraces the rule ‘first talk, then vote’ (Dryzek, 1990; Goodin, 2008), and, thereby, facilitates taking into consideration all different perspectives. This mechanism of perspective-taking is at the core of the rational process of collective will and opinion formation (cf. section 1 chapter 1).

Discursive depoliticization involves the overall ‘promotion of one issue’ and can increase discussions around this issue, whether it be in formal deliberative spaces, in societal debates or in everyday talks. However, discursive depoliticization also impacts the core of the procedure of deliberation. The mechanism of discursive depoliticization operates by promoting an issue alongside one single interpretation and obscures the alternative interpretation (cf. chapter 1 section 1). At the core of deliberation, perspective-taking is the act of perceiving a situation from alternative points of view. It requires to inform oneself on different perspectives and, therefore, to accept the very existence of these different perspectives. Yet, discursive depoliticization negates other interpretations and renders the issue unproblematic. Suggesting

(26)

that the issue is not subject to various interpretations, it implies that there is no point in taking into account different perspectives to try to see the problem through different angles.

Hence, I defend that the core of the mechanism of discursive depoliticization is to prevent the audience from seeing other perspectives, therefore, referring to the issue of hegemonic discourse, which constraints discussions on social and political problems (Young, 2001). In contrast with the previously presented analysis from Landwehr (2017), in which the existing procedures of decision-making limit policy alternatives and thereby, facilitate discursively depoliticized issues, it seems that the discourses of depoliticization themselves limit policy alternatives, and facilitate discursively depoliticized decision-making. Returning on Landwehr’ example (2017) about the case of European monetary policy. She demonstrates how the discursive depoliticization of the economic issues prevents new deliberations, making irreversible the decision to delegate state’s monetary function to independent central banks (Ibid). However, I contend that there are new discussions regarding the monetary policy, which are taking place in European deliberative systems, but, nonetheless, the hegemonic discourse on the independence of central banks prevents from seeing different perspectives in these discussions.

Therefore, the discourses of ‘depoliticization’ are an impediment to the procedure of deliberation itself. However, the deliberative systems’ strength is that “a single part, which in itself have low or even no deliberative quality with respect to one of several deliberative ideals, may nevertheless make an important contribution to an overall deliberative system” (Mansbridge et al., 2012: 3). Even though limiting the procedure of deliberation, one might defend that discursive depoliticization can contribute positively to the overall political system.

Generally, despite the low deliberative character of political talks, discussing political issues in public settings produces some outcomes such as perception of government responsiveness or political participation, which are critical to the functioning of the overall

(27)

system (Searing et al. 2007). For instance, with regards to the abolition of military service in Spain and in Germany, a study of public communication unveils the role of the mechanism of problematization, which “broadly defined, consists in saying ‘no’ (…) - (that decision or policy) is not necessary or desirable” (Engelken-Jorge, 2018: 146). While being poorly deliberative, the mechanism favors the procedure of adjudicating perspectives. The mechanism in question inscribes decision making in a recursive process that follows the logic: “communication - decision - further communication - further decisions” (Ibid: 174) and generates new political claims and proposals until the decision reaches the level of mutual justification.

Nonetheless, it is unlikely that discursive depoliticization can have the same effect. In contrast to the mechanism of problematization, the mechanism of discursive depoliticization in elites discourses precisely consists in saying ‘yes’ to the public - that decision or policy is necessary or inevitable.

Building on this observation, I argue that re-evaluating the effects of discursive depoliticization on deliberative systems is essential to avoid the downside of the systemic approach, which is at risk to “(judge) a system as deliberative with little, or even nothing, in the way of actual democratic deliberation between citizens, taking place” (Owen and Smith, 2015: 118), “ (becoming) a functional defense of non-deliberative acts and practices” (Ibid: 222). Before developing the rest of my analysis, I will introduce my case study on the political treatment of domestic abuse in the French context. I, then, use this case study to illustrate the two last arguments of my last section on the effects of discursive depoliticization on deliberative systems.

(28)

The French Case on Domestic Abuse

This study focuses on the impact of discursive depoliticization on deliberation and on deliberative systems. However, before pursuing my analysis, I now introduce my case study on the political treatment of domestic abuses in France.

Domestic abuse is an important issue, which is internationally recognized as a violence against women (Jaspard, 2011). The term domestic abuse covers the types of violence which happen between intimate partners. More broadly, it covers “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behavior, violence, or abuse between those aged of 16 or over, who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality” (K. Jenkins, 2017: 193). Finally, this violence is multiform: it can be physical, sexual, psychological, financial or emotional (Ibid, 2017).

Historically, in France before the 80’s, violence between spouses or partners was considered natural, coming from irremediable differences in the natural force (weak/strong) and role (submission/domination) between men and women (Jaspard, 2011). Thereafter, from the 80’s to today, the feminist movement has played a key role in the recognition of the collective dimension of domestic abuse. Between 1980-2000, feminist organizations worked intensively to frame domestic abuse as a social issue: they argued that causes are not natural and that conversely, the phenomenon takes root in the social construction of gender differences (Delage, 2017). Put another way, men and “women’s desires, preferences, and self-conceptions are constructed by and through the macro forces of patriarchy - discourses such as law, medicine, cultural tradition, religious and moral belief” (Hirschmann 2003: 125). Hence, the sexist organization of society, as a whole, constructs the power relation that penalizes women and advantages men.

(29)

Today, this feminist discourse is still in use, especially in different feminist non-profit organizations. However, this understanding is increasingly in competition with the discourse that promotes the psychological and individual understanding domestic abuses (Delage, 2017). Since the 2000’s, psychologists and psychiatrists have introduced and popularized the use of psychological tools in the fight against domestic abuse. Notably, French psychologist Marie-France Hirigoyen, has adapted the notion of ‘emprise’ from the field of psychiatry to the specific issue of domestic abuse. This concept refers to the psychological state of mind of the victims of domestic abuse: the strategies of the perpetrators provoke the victims’ emotional subordination. For instance, victims can have automatic responses such as dissociation during the attacks and/or traumatic memory after the attacks, then feeding numbness and/or dependency (Hirigoyen, 2005). While the individual ‘micro’ level of control and the social ‘macro’ level of control are deeply intertwined (Hirschmann, 2003), the concept of ‘emprise’ is often mobilized alone to explain the violence and why women stay with or return to the abusive partner, even after repeated attempts to leave and repeated abuses.

In a nutshell, the first step, the feminist mobilization, corresponds to a period of societal politicization, and partial governmental politicization. The feminist framing has successfully opened the path to taking action in the political and the public sphere: if social organization creates such violence, something needs to be done collectively to change the situation. For instance, the French government and civil society attempted to handle this collective problem, mainly through changing the law to protect the victims, opening shelters, developing organizations dedicated to the support of victims and, finally, increasing private and public funding. However, since the 2000’s, the issue of domestic abuse has been subject to societal depoliticization (Herman, 2012; Delage, 2017). Indeed, the increasing use of the psychological tools in the fight against domestic abuse goes along with the privatization of domestic abuse. The problem is increasingly seen as a private matter: women should go to therapists and should

(30)

be individually empowered in order to face the situation and to succeed in leaving their abusive partners.

In the end, the analysis of political communication across formal and informal settings of the political (and deliberative) system reveals the need to “(pay) more attention to the interplay of the (…) different faces of politicization and depoliticization” (Maia 2017: 154). However, as the focus of this essay is on discursive depoliticization, I do not directly take part in this reflection, but I further explore the discourse of ‘emprise’, which calls for more attention as it also sustains a case of discursive depoliticization.

The French government held ‘the Grenelle des violences’, a multiparty debate on domestic abuse, in autumn 2019. The objective of this meeting was to encourage dialogue between different actors and stakeholders and to take decisions. The discourse of ‘emprise’ is already ‘fixed’ within the broader discourse of domestic abuse in France which then must be understood to underpin the vote of the measure of ‘forced protection’ that was taken. This measure consists in granting medical staff the right to break medical confidentiality in exceptional cases of ‘grave dangers.’11

Therefore, the discourse of ‘emprise’ underpins the reasoning behind the measure. Through the lens of the individual and psychological interpretation, the victims cannot leave because of their mental state, leading them to understand that it is safer to stay with the abuser rather than to leave. Women’s reactions are similar to a ‘natural’ reaction, sometimes underpinned by neurobiological reactions. In contrast, the feminist interpretation of domestic abuses claims that women’s reactions are constructed through structural processes, which result in overall

11_{See also the report published by the French government on the measures taken during this debate:} https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2019/11/dossier_de_presse_-_cloture_du_grenelle_contre_les_violences_conjugales_-_25.11.2019.pdf

(31)

society condoning sexist violence and associated behaviors and holding women responsible for their relationship and their partner’s behaviors.

Yet the discourse of ‘emprise’ transforms into discursive depoliticization when it negates the political character of decision-making by affirming that the decision to resort to ‘forced protection’ is the only option, although other solutions, such as developing non-sexist education, are available. The collective must grant medical staff the right to impose ‘forced protection’ on women because medical staff must save women who, due to their mental state, have died and risk being, and more likely will be, killed again. This affirmation hides the framing which underpins the discourse of ‘emprise’, leading to mask the predominance of the individual and psychological interpretation over the feminist one.

In the final section, I investigate the effects of discursive depoliticization regarding the deliberative democratic standards (cf. chapter 1 section 3) and notably regarding the democratic ideal, which underlines the importance of the inclusion of multiple and plural claims in the process.

Discursive Depoliticization in the Light of Deliberative Democratic Standards

In this section, I defend that discursive depoliticization questions the capacities of deliberative systems to live up to the ‘all-affected’ principle. Put differently, the effects of discursive depoliticization are to endanger the democratic dimension of the political system and especially, regarding the norms of inclusion and political equality.

The danger regarding the norm of inclusion within deliberative systems

I defend that discursive depoliticization causes a problem for deliberative systems. It breaks the communicative process between elites and citizens and leaves out citizens’ claims and

(32)

perspectives from decision-making, undermining the importance of participation as well as the legitimacy of decisions.

The democratic ideal of deliberative systems relies on the inclusion of multiple and plural claims and voices. Broadly, the democratic function is associated with the role of the citizens, participating in the political public sphere, that ought to “develop out of the communication taking place among those who are potentially affected” (Habermas, 1996: 365). In contrast, the epistemic function is often linked with the role of elites in framing convincing policy proposals in the governmental sphere (Chambers, 2017). However, the asymmetrical relationship between elites and citizens is compatible with democracy only if there is ‘an ongoing flow of information that circulates throughout the system and between elites and citizens mediated by a responsible media’ (Ibid: 273). Thus, the epistemic ideal, which underscores the importance to take into consideration relevant information, is closely linked to the democratic ideal. More precisely, the on-going flow of information relies on a two-way process: “elites (especially representatives and deputies but also other information elites) need to be responsive to the problems, concerns, and interests of citizens and citizens need to be responsive to the information and persuasive arguments presented by elites” (Ibid: 272).

Yet, the main issue with discursive depoliticization is that the mechanism of discursive depoliticization, bypassing perspective-taking, separates decision-making from the flow of information from the periphery to the center and leaves elites irresponsive to citizens’ problems and claims. In other worlds, the discourse of depoliticization, making the issue unproblematic by negating the existence of competing interpretation, can close the space for the expression of other claims and can reduce, or even, end, the influence of the collective opinions on decision-making.

Let’s return to my example concerning the discourse of ‘emprise’, mobilized in the context of the multiparty debate on domestic abuse in France, which has granted medical staff

(33)

the right to break medical confidentiality in order to ‘protect’ women. The problem is set in these terms in the discourse of ‘emprise’: women want to leave their abusive partner but since they are subjected to ‘emprise’, they cannot do so. In this way, the problem underscores women’s lack of agency and that the measure of ‘forced protection’ is the solution in order to help women solve their problems. However, this form of measure is questionable, not necessarily regarding the content of the measure in itself, but regarding how the decision was taken, seeing as the decision-making process has left out potential citizens’ claims and concerns.

As demonstrated in the previous section, this measure is presented as the only way to help women, even though other ideas have been presented in the public sphere regarding ‘forced protection’. For instance, within academia, the measure has been criticized since it may hinder women to seek out medical attention, in fear of being forced to leave their abusive partner due to the mandatory decision of medical staff (Hirschmann, 2003). Furthermore, the problem for the concerned citizens could indeed be different than the one framed by the discourse of ‘emprise’. Women may not want to leave their relationship. By leaving they might face material consequences such as lack of economic resources. They might also experience stigmatization due to blaming from relatives for failing their relationship or experience racist or homophobic (or even both) discriminations from different institutions that they may come into contact with, and so on. I am not making claims that these specific examples are the main problems in which women in abusive relationships are concerned with, but what I have sought out to demonstrate is that the matter of the issue could lie elsewhere, in the broader social context and also how the decision-making process for this measure excluded these types of perspectives. In other words, those alternative approaches were not taken into consideration during the decision-making process because of the dominance of the discourse of ‘emprise’.

(34)

Moreover, it is important to note that the on-going communicative process ought to ensure the effective participation of citizens in decision-making. Indeed, it informs the elites concerning citizen’s claims, which have resulted from their participation in the process of collective opinion formation. This, it is possible to incriminate discursive depoliticization – for partly – being responsible of a decrease in the participation of citizens in the overall system. The discourse of depoliticization undermines the importance of participation because it makes the elites deaf to hearing the opinions, emerging from the participation of ‘ordinary citizens’ in the context of the collective opinion formation. Consequently, discursive depoliticization can discourage citizens from engaging in the process of collective opinion formation and from producing claims in the public sphere. Indeed, the engagement of citizens in the public debate depends on the citizens’ motivation as well as their own belief that they have a reason to participate (Chambers, 1996). Therefore, it is likely that “if the public cannot see why engaging would change anything (…), they will understandably disengage from voting for, and joining for political parties or institutions” (Wood and Flinders 2017: 603). Hence, it is likely that they will generally disengage from the public debate, and specifically, from having political discussions.

Therefore, the critiques against discursive depoliticization are several, for one regarding the link between the democratic and epistemic functions. The discourses of depoliticization, excluding those who are concerned from the process of decision-making, also leave decisions unjustifiable. As a reminder, the goal of democratic deliberation is to produce legitimate decisions, that respond to the norm of mutual justification i.e. the political order is legitimate when it is justified to all the subjects of law. It requires the participation of all those who are affected, guaranteed through the sufficient connection between decision-making and the process of collective opinion formation, which favors open participation in the context of deliberative systems. The discourses of depoliticization, breaking the flow of information,

(35)

precisely impinge upon the production of decisions reaching this requirement. Whether it reduces the participation of the citizens or not, discursive depoliticization, by leaving decision-making uninformed, entails that elite decision-decision-making does not reflect on citizens’ claims and therefore, cannot, by any means, be democratically justifiable. Finally, the result is that discursive depoliticization can endanger the capacity of deliberative systems to promote an inclusive political process, which is crucial in order to produce legitimate decisions.

The danger regarding the norm of political equality in deliberative systems

I finally defend that discursive depoliticization causes yet another problem for deliberative systems. The discourses of depoliticization construct dominant norms from dominant groups perspectives, and therefore, create interferences between dominant narratives and marginalized groups’ perspectives, eventually silencing the claims of members such as women, LBTQI+ people, people of color, indigenous people, etc., in the public debate.

The systemic approach is concerned with fostering political equality and inclusion of marginalized groups. Deliberative systems precisely intervene to fight against the effect of power imbalances on participation (cf. chapter 1 section 2). However, Drake (2019) defends that deliberative systems do not consider the pervasive effects of structural oppressions. Young defines structural oppressions as “the systemic institutional processes (…) which inhibit people’s ability to play and communicate with others or to express their feelings and perspectives on social life in contexts where others can listen” (Young in Drake 2019: 3). More precisely, the measures, such as integrating enclaves or valorizing activism, fail to tackle the problem of structural oppressions because their goal is only to distribute empowerment in order to guarantee the same right to marginalized groups than to other citizens, but not to transform deep-rooted power relations. In relation to structural oppressions, “power is (better understood as) a relation rather than a thing” (Ibid). Put differently, resulting from the way social groups

(36)

such as men/women, white/people of colors, heterosexual/homosexual, etc., are constructed, “people (are) differently positioned in structural processes (and) often have unequal opportunities for self-development” (Young 2009: 84). Thus, challenging the institutional environment can help to reduce oppression but principally, changes should come from the evolution of societal decisions, norms and interactive habits.

Various mechanisms perpetuate structural disadvantages for groups defined by disability, gender inequality and institutional racism (Young, 2009). One of them is the mechanism of normalization, which refers to the “process that constructs experiences and capacities of social segments into standards against which all are measured, and some found wanting and/ or deviant” (Young in Vieten, 2014: 7). Notably, the notion demands to pay attention to the ways “majority normativity and hegemonic values keep (…) the structural disadvantages in place” (Vieten 2014: 1).

My argument is that discursive depoliticization can act as a mechanism of normalization. Discursive depoliticization sets standards from dominant experiences and discredits the validity of oppressed groups experiences. As a reminder, I consider the discourses of depoliticization that take place in the context of public communication, often practiced by elites. In the following argumentation, I focus on the discourses of depoliticization, which set standards from the experiences of dominant groups, because regarding the social composition of the elites, it is the most likely.12

First, discursive depoliticization favors dominant perspectives. As previously demonstrated, discursive depoliticization promotes an issue alongside one interpretation (cf. chapter 2 section 2) and does not favor perspective-taking. Consequently, the discourses of

12_{The discourse of depoliticization can also be practiced by citizens or by marginalized groups or can} also set standards from their point of views, but I do not consider these cases in this essay.

Deliberative Systems: the Danger of Discursive Depoliticization