Sous la monarchie de Juillet, les orateurs politiques sont aussi des « orateurs personnels ». L'expression est de Delphine de Girardin1. Ils parlent à l'auditoire de toute leur âme mise à nu. Rien à voir avec aujourd'hui, où l'éloquence politique, certes héritière de cette intrusion du privé dans l'espace public si féconde à l'époque romantique, offre seulement une vision dégradée de ce qu'un Guizot, un Lamartine ou encore un Louis Blanc étaient capables de faire. Mais vous ne devez pas imaginer que tous les orateurs romantiques parlaient comme Malraux (on a dans l'oreille quelque chose de très ampoulé, n'est-ce pas ?) ou, s'ils le faisaient, vous ne vous en seriez pas le moins du monde rendu compte parce qu'étant homme ou femme de 1830, vous aussi, vous auriez eu le sentiment que les orateurs personnels vous parlaient directement au coeur, et avec le coeur, seulement. 2L'éloquence dont il sera ici question concerne, de plus, un type particulier d'hommes politiques. Elle concerne les orateurs parlementaires rentrés au bercail, dans leur circonscription ou dans leur arrondissement. Elle concerne les orateurs qui soufflent enfin, les orateurs qui peuvent, en toute quiétude, parler à des gens qui les aiment et qu'ils aiment en retour pour cette raison même. Et donc, il n'y a point de lyrisme parlementaire à percevoir dans leurs discours, mais il y a à entendre un idéal lyrique transporté à « un balcon de campagne »-l'expression est de Lamartine-ou encore, un idéal oratoire amoureux de la politique vécu à l'image d'un banquet idéal pendant le siècle. Aujourd'hui on en connaît seulement la méchante caricature qu'en faisait Flaubert dans sa Correspondance au sujet de la campagne pour la Réforme électorale pendant l'année 1847. La campagne mène directement aux journées de Février 18482. Avec Lamartine-dont nous faisons ici le représentant de tous ces orateurs sensibles et romantiques qui, fourbus par la dernière session parlementaire, rentrent au berceau de leur engagement originel, au berceau de leurs plus intimes convictions-il ne s'agit pas même de banquets mais seulement de bonnes petites et paisibles assemblées de province au sein desquelles le « tintement sensible de la voix de l'homme intime, du poète, s'entend en lieu et place d'une voix rationalisante et raisonneuse qui serait émise au moyen d'une bouche intéressée et cynique3 ». À Mâcon, l'orateur romantique abandonne l'éloquence parlementaire. Il parle même contre elle pour se faire entendre de ceux qui aiment la belle éloquence et ...

DUPART, Dominique. Éloquence sensible, éloquence à la Jean-Jacques : un idéal lyrique transporté sur un balcon de campagne ou les Discours familiers de Lamartine In : Les Formes du politique [en ligne]. Strasbourg : Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2010 (généré le 16 octobre 2020). Disponible sur Internet : <http://books.openedition.org/pus/2562>. ISBN : 9791034404964. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pus.2562.

Many advocates of deliberative democracy see in the Internet a new opportunity for the development of public spaces, public spheres, and places where deliberation can take place. An important element of the notion of the public sphere in general and of deliberation specifically, is the quality of the debate. In the past decade, many studies have been conducted to evaluate online discussions in light of the ideal notion of the public sphere. However, a wide gap exists between theoretical approaches and the actual operationalization of such theories for empirical research. In an attempt to bridge this gap we develop a method for examining the extent to which Internet forums meet the normative requirements of rational-critical debate, reciprocity, and reflexivity. The methodological approach consists of a textual analysis of the contributions made to an online forum. The coding scheme presented in this article is based on a case study (UK Online) and guided by the theoretical notions of deliberative democracy.

Chantal Mouffe’s conceptualization of a deliberatively forged consensus as a hegemony and her assertion that adversarial politics best nurtures the conditions of freedom have had a profound influence on contemporary democratic thought. This article takes a critical view of this trend, arguing that a norm of consensus is a very precondition, rather than impediment, for the kind of pluralistic democracy Mouffe and other agonists wish to promote. It is asserted that Mouffe’s dehistoricized refutation of consensus lacks causal or explanatory relevance to how concrete actors embedded in empirical situations relate to one another and that the very preparedness to find something acceptable about another is at the heart of what it means to treat others justly.

Rządzenie deliberatywne jako łączne uwzględnianie na potrzeby polityki publicznej wiedzy eksperckiej, interesów własnych i emocji wg zasady wszechstronniczości.

Prezentacja stanowi streszczenie na potrzeby konsultacji przygotowywanej monografii (roboczy tytuł: Wszechstronniczość: Jak deliberować o emocjach, interesach własnych i wiedzy eksperckiej?), która bazuje na pracy doktorskiej pt. Deliberatywny Model Polityki (pod kierunkiem prof. K. Pałeckiego, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków 2017).

How might discourse generate political change? So far, democratic theorists have focused largely on how deliberative exchanges might shift political opinion. Responding to empirical research that casts doubt on the generalizability of deliberative mechanisms outside of carefully designed forums, this essay seeks to broaden the scope of discourse theory by considering speech that addresses participants’ identities instead. More specifically, we ask what may be learned about identity-oriented discourse by examining the practice of religious preaching. As we demonstrate, scholars of homiletics—the study of preaching—have identified three core features that support its focus on identity: its unconditionality, its appeal to authoritative texts and traditions, and its diffuse instrumentality. We then ask what each of these features might look like in more straightforwardly political contexts. Finally, we address several normative questions raised by this practice, as a way of exploring the promises and dangers accompanying identity-oriented discourse more generally.

Nachhaltige Entwicklung verlangt eine breit angelegte sozial-ökologische Transformation. Diese lässt sich weder allein durch die " top-down "-Strukturen unserer repräsentativen Demokratie, noch direktdemokratisch im " bottom-up "-Verfahren erreichen. Es bedarf der Verzahnung von Steuerungspolitik und Handlungsermächtigung. Innerhalb des dazu notwendigen " side-by-side "-Verfahrens kommt Bürgerbeteiligung eine essentielle Rolle zu, wobei es nicht nur auf die Quantität, sondern auch die Qualität der partizipativen Elemente ankommt.

Quedan rigurosamente prohibidas, sin la autorización escrita de los titulares del «Copyright», bajo las sanciones establecidas en las leyes, la reproducción total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, comprendidos la reprografía y el tratamiento informático, y la distribución de ejemplares de ella mediante alquiler o préstamo públicos. © José Luis Martí © MARCIAL PONS EDICIONES JURÍDICAS Y SOCIALES, S. A. San Sotero, 6 -28037 MADRID ☎ (91) 304 33 03 ISBN: 84-Depósito legal: M. 2006

El objetivo del trabajo es reflexionar y problematizar acerca de la centralidad del rol del juez en los procesos colectivos, identificándolo como un deber y presupuesto esencial de este esquema de procesamiento. El modo en que el juez ejerza su función como director, gestor y responsable político, social e institucional constituye un elemento determinante para su validez y adecuada estructuración y tramitación. Al mismo tiempo, conforma un reaseguro para la realización de los fines e intereses (in)mediatos involucrados en su resolución. El reconocimiento y procesamiento de derechos y conflictos colectivos supone una profunda transformación del Poder Judicial y del juez como actor social, que agrava el alcance de su intervención en la adjudicación de razones y bienes públicos dentro del juego democrático. Ello es lo que dota de tanto poder como responsabilidad al juez, especialmente en un contexto de ausencia normativa y desarreglos institucionales profundos.

Democracy has never been more popular. It is successfully practiced today in a myriad of different ways by people across virtually every cultural, religious or socio-economic context. The forty-five essays collected in this companion suggest that the global popularity of democracy derives in part from its breadth and depth in the common history of human civilization. The chapters include exceptional accounts of democracy in ancient Greece and Rome, modern Europe and America, among peoples’ movements and national revolutions, and its triumph since the end of the Cold War. However, this book also includes alternative accounts of democracy’s history: its origins in prehistoric societies and early city-states, under-acknowledged contributions from China, Africa and the Islamic world, its familiarity to various Indigenous Australians and Native Americans, the various challenges it faces today in South America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the latest democratic developments in light of globalization and new technologies, and potential future pathways to a more democratic world. Understanding where democracy comes from, where its greatest successes and most dismal failures lie, is central to democracy’s project of inventing ways to address the need of people everywhere to live in peace, freedom and with a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

The objectives of the article attempts to make comparative analysis with youth perception on the political activities and motivations in the decision and policy making process. We, also inspected to categorize that current status Political discourse analysis is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings) as the phenomenon of interest. The article is aimed to clarify that discourse analysis to be effective from the post-positivist perspective. Political discourse is the informal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. This is the first attempts to investigating the democracy challenges and achievements through discourse analysis.
Its approaches are divided into four periods of 1989-2000, 2000-2011 and 2011- to present democracy challenges and understanding for Mongolians’ attitudes.

The "Greek crisis" was officially inaugurated on May 2010 with the loan the Greek government took from the IMF-European Union-European Central Bank troika, the largest a country had ever taken (€110 bn). Since then, the social implications of this crisis have been dramatic. The form and the scale of social phenomena observed today in Greece and particularly in Athens--e.g., extreme poverty and inequality, profound police violence, organized racist violence--are unprecedented for the country. Nevertheless, a diachronic examination of some socio-spatial aspects of Athens reveals that the social character of the current crisis has been taking shape for some time. This article aims shed light on the social shape of the crisis by outlining three such socio-spatial dimensions as they materialized in the case of Athens during 1990s and 2000s: first, the emergence of new forms of social exclusion and inequality; second, the vast project of urban (re)development and the new spatialities it produced, and third the emergence of novel forms of political and xenophobic violence.

10 octobre 1790. Mâcon. Naissance de Lamartine. Celui qui sera poète lyrique, romancier, historien – soit un polygraphe hors pair – mais aussi orateur parlementaire et révolutionnaire à la tête du Gouvernement provisoire de février 1848, naît et grandit dans une famille de petite noblesse au milieu de la Bourgogne. Tous les soirs, le père de Lamartine fait la lecture au jeune Lamartine, son aîné, et à toute la famille réunie. « Mon père avait une voix sonore, douce, grave, vibrante, comme les palpitations d'une corde de harpe, où la vie des entrailles auxquelles on l'a arrachée semble avoir laissé le gémissement d'un nerf animé. » 4 novembre 1837. Presque cinquante années après sa naissance, après de multiples excursus en Italie ou en Suisse et un grand voyage en Orient, Lamartine rentre au bercail mâconnais. Il est enfin élu député de sa ville natale. Membre du parti légitimiste, il représente à la Chambre le pays de son enfance transcendé en circonscription électorale. Entre-temps, Lamartine a connu l'Empire et deux ou trois révolutions. En 1802, quand Napoléon remplace Bonaparte, Lamartine a douze ans. En 1815, à la Restauration, il a vingt-cinq ans. En 1830, au moment de la révolution de Juillet, il a 40 ans. Quand il prononce, en 1834, son premier discours à la Chambre sur la question d'Orient, il a 44 ans. Il lui reste encore à connaître une nouvelle révolution (février 1848), une élection présidentielle manquée (décembre 1848) et un coup d'État réussi de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte contre la II e République (décembre 1851). La biographie politique de Lamartine épouse étroitement les méandres d'un siècle extrêmement violent et instable. En exorde de son premier discours parlementaire, le 4 janvier 1834, Lamartine déclare aux Députés qu'il est appelé à la Chambre par la voix du pays : « Je ne me proposais pas d'essayer sitôt la parole à cette tribune, toute pleine encore pour vous et pour moi du souvenir et des accents de nos grands hommes politiques : leur voix éteinte y retentit encore à mon esprit, et la mémoire éloquente des de Serres, des Foy, des Lainé, cette mémoire, plus vivante sur ce théâtre de leurs luttes, est bien propre à inspirer une religieuse terreur à ceux que la voix du pays appelle à parler à leur place, mais non jamais à les remplacer. » En réalité, Lamartine surmonte bien vite cette « religieuse terreur » inspirée par les orateurs du régime précédent. Dès le Voyage en Orient publié en 1835, il appelait de ses voeux le surgissement d'un chef ou d'un maître à la tête d'un mouvement nouveau. Toute l'ambition politique de l'orateur qui débute avec cet exorde à la Chambre de Juillet est d'incarner un « Bonaparte de la parole ». Lamartine l'écrit explicitement en 1831. « Faute d'un homme, d'un homme politique, d'un homme complet dans l'intelligence et la vertu, d'un homme résumé sublime et vivant d'un siècle, fort de la force de sa conviction et de celle de son époque, Bonaparte de la parole, ayant l'instinct

This paper sets out an ambitious critique of contemporary political scientists, political historians and others concerned with the history of democracy. It argues that overwhelmingly the history of democracy relies on an overtly Eurocentric narrative that emphasizes the keystone moments of Western civilization. According to this narrative, democracy has a clear trajectory that can be traced from ancient experiments with participatory government in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, through the development of the British parliament, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and then finally onto the triumphant march of the liberal model of democracy across the globe over the last 200 years, particularly under Western tutelage. Histories of democracy that focus exclusively on these events not only privilege Europe and its successful colonies, but also miss the broader human story of the struggle for and achievement of democracy.

This presents us with a distinct challenge. For those whose heritage does not include a direct link to Greek assemblies, the American Congress or the French Revolution, the 'standard history of democracy' provides a distant and exclusive narrative, which limits one's ability to embrace democracy. This paper concludes by noting that, as democracy spreads out across the world today, political scientists not only need to break down the intellectual orthodoxy that democracy has exclusively Western roots, but also to embrace a more global view of democracy as a political practise that has been present at various times and in sometimes unfamiliar ways in the complex histories and rich cultural traditions of most of the people of the earth.

Este texto é o primeiro capítulo de minha tese de doutorado intitulada: “Possibilidades e limites da democracia
deliberativa: a experiência do Orçamento Participativo de Porto Alegre”. O texto procura, à luz de um novo contexto participativo no país caracterizado pela construção e ampliação de
espaços de co-gestão das políticas públicas (a exemplo dos Conselhos Gestores e experiências de Orçamento
Participativo), analisar e formular um conceito de democracia deliberativa como suporte teórico de avaliação dessas
articulações entre sociedade civil e Estado

Defining what democracy means nowadays seems increasingly problematic as several alternative democratic visions are being developed and contrasted in normative theory and political practice. On the one hand, there are traditional accounts of democracy that are highly formal and minimalistic. Citizens are endowed with political rights, which they use to advance their interests, particularly through regular elections, which delegate power to governing representatives. Representative democracy has been long identified with this conception. On the other hand, alternative perspectives have emphasised the untapped potential of liberal societies. These more radical perspectives belong to two main democratic traditions: participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. On the basis of a common framework of participatory and deliberative norms, this paper envisages an alternative and more robust idea of democracy to offer normative guidance in democratising contemporary societies. We tie our discussion to an analysis of how Italian democracy could be improved.

Axel Honneth may be criticised for reducing political philosophy to moral psychology. In what follows, I argue that if his theory of recognition is reframed as one of democracy, quite another picture will appear. To do this, I systematically reconstruct Honneth’s stance as a multidimensional version of radical democracy. The question I discuss is the manner in which this framework combines the three dimensions of democratic deliberation, culture, and conflict. I then discuss Honneth’s picture from both a deliberative and agonistic viewpoint. How one understands the way in which he combines the abovementioned dimensions is dependent upon which one of these two approaches one may choose. I claim that when taken together, these three dimensions form the grounding of a radical-democratic understanding of a struggle for recognition, which I term institutional agonism.

Ceci est un mémoire de recherche sur les variables capables de supporter ou de bloquer le processus de démocratisation en Mauritanie. L'étude se limite sur la période 2008 à 2014 tout en faisant quelques digressions de part et d'autres de ces limites temporelles.

The paper aims to analyze the deliberation-way of the Athenians, especially according to Demosthenes' point of view. The orator blames his fellow-citizens for their fickleness, their inconsistency and incongruity, their tendency to withdraw themselves from responsibilities, when they gather in Assembly in order to take a resolution. Which reason, if any, lies behind this criticism? In accordance with the circumstances, the orator asks for a rational debate or prepares in the way he wants the attitude of the audience; he can appreciate or blame it; and the attitude rebuked could be understood both as a fact as well as a provocative warning. Moreover Athenian people, bringing actions like eisangelia, probole, or graphe paranomon against rhetores who have cheated it, wants to reaffirm the right and non-culpable exercise of its sovereignty and the non-responsibility for the vote it has given taking their advice. But these procedures are at the same time tools rhetores exploit not just for moral principle, but rather for individualistic reasons in the political struggle between them.

This paper provides a critical analysis of the Radi-Aid “Africa for Norway” project in order to identify a “humanitarian relation” that informs development agency marketing, as well as global education initiatives. Taking Vanessa Andreotti’s Heads Up critical literacy tool as a starting point, the paper addresses three related questions that we must be attentive to in developing critical practices of engaging with humanitarian discourse: 1) How do our social positions and attendant perspectives shape our analysis? 2) How do approaches that focus on critique fail to address the appeal of development marketing as a practice of benevolence? and 3) How can structural violence be effectively represented? While the Radi-Aid project seeks to challenge the negative stereotypes of Africa that circulate in Europe and North America, I argue that it ultimately reaffirms a humanitarian relation. The problem, I conclude, is how to unpack and undo this relation, not just in intellectual terms – the delineation of the relationships of inequality that produce suffering – but in the terms of how that relation is felt as a sense of purpose and status for the Western-situated humanitarian.

Introduction
Culture includes our whole system of beliefs, values, attitudes, customs, institutions and social relations.  The global crisis facing humanity is a reflection of this system and is therefore a cultural crisis (UNESCO 1997). Hawkes (2001) reasoned that culture is the fourth pillar of sustainability, the glue that holds the social, environmental and economic pillars steadfast. An important skill for dealing with cultural diversity is cultural competence, which Chrisman (2007:69) defines as 'attitudes, practice skills, and system savvy for cross cultural situations'. The central thrust of most cultural competence work involves individuals' flexibility and capability to properly assess and treat all people respectfully and in a suitable manner appropriate to their culture. Cultural literacy includes cultural competence but adds to it the ability to critically reflect on, and if necessary bring about change in, one's own culture. It also includes the ability to critically analyse the behaviours of dominant cultures in relation to other cultures, for instance, the impact of globalization or  cross-cultural partnerships on local cultures around the world. There may, for example, be exploitative elements of sustainable development partnerships implemented by Western multi-national corporations in non-Western countries. Four key cultural literacy skills will be discussed in this chapter.

• Cross-cultural awareness
• Local cultural awareness
• Critical reflection and thinking
• Personal skills for coping with being change agent

Political discourse is often dominated by attacks on credibility at the expense of discussions about policy proposals. Such attacks can exacerbate political division and undermine attempts to discuss difficult policy questions in the public sphere. While this is true, it is argued in this article that it is a mistake to simply dismiss all such attacks as irrational and illegitimate deviations from the norms of deliberative argumentation. Resolving questions about whom to trust is vital to our lives as social knowers. Furthermore, the influence enjoyed by speakers (individuals and organizations) is not always warranted and deserves to be challenged. Even though it strains the norms of civility, equality, and inclusion promoted by the deliberative model of democracy, the public contestation of credibility can serve epistemically and socially valuable ends. Thus, the contestation of credibility is a profoundly ambivalent phenomenon. Nonetheless, it has a central role to play in the social rationality of public discourse and merits greater attention by democratic theorists.

It is hard to gauge the significance of Jacques Rancière’s conception of politics for contemporary political theory without addressing his attempt to break with the Habermasian linguistic-pragmatic paradigm and to set up an alternative model of political speech (“dissensus”) which “has the rationality of disagreement as its very own rationality.” But Rancière’s departure from Habermas’s theory of communicative action is subtle and difficult to assess. In this essay we aim to explicate and examine their disagreement. In doing so we also seek to measure the distance between the two thinkers. We argue that Rancière’s critique of Habermas is cogent and represents an innovative and provocative contribution to the theory of democracy.

Deliberative democracy is widely associated with a public sphere that is more inclusive of cultural and religious minority groups than that established by a model of politics as interest aggregation. But it has also been criticized for stipulating unjust terms for this political inclusion, and for being insufficiently responsive to identity group-based claims. Such challenges have prompted much internal debate about the validity and the practical consequences of different norms and mechanisms of deliberative democracy. Models of public deliberation less beholden to Habermasian discourse ethics, I argue, offer a more promising response to theses multicultural challenges. There is much in deliberative democracy that conduces to an inclusive and diverse public sphere. The theory's grounding in communicative as opposed to strategic and instrumental action (Habermas 1984) requires that we respect citizens' moral differences and not seek to bracket these from democratic political life. The requirement that political decision-making be based on public deliberation and the respectful exchange of shared reasons — rather than on mere interests or sheer power — would seem to encourage diverse citizens

Ever since the advent of the Internet, political communication scholars have debated its potential to facilitate and support public deliberation as a means of revitalizing and extending the public sphere. Much of the debate has focused on the medium’s potential in offering communicative spaces that transcend the limitations of time, space and access (and the traditional mass media) whereby open communication, deliberation and exchange of information among the public can prosper. Following the initial enthusiasm over the possibilities of a more interactive and deliberative electorate, along with the cyber-pessimist response, a growing body of rich empirical research into online deliberation has arisen in its wake. In search of online deliberation, scholars have conducted a broad range of investigations, developing several prominent directions in the field. One popular line of research has been the study of informal political talk through the lens of public sphere ideals.The aim of this chapter is to detail and discuss this growing body of research and its significance. First, I begin by discussing what scholars mean by political talk and why it is thought to be essential for (a more deliberative) democracy. Following this, the major findings to date are set out focusing specifically on three of the most common features of political talk investigated by scholars in the field. I discuss scholarly disagreement and offer my thoughts and critical reflection on the topic. Finally, the chapter ends with several recommendations for future research into informal political talk in the Internet-based public sphere.

Deliberative democracy is usually understood through the lens of a developmental, progressive narrative. We shall show how this narrative is historically fallacious and effectively obscures the theoretical fault lines within deliberative theory. Setting the narrative straight is thus the first condition to recover the real stakes of the deliberative debate, which has long removed, but never solved, the conflict between procedural and substantive interpretations. This opposition was itself mis-framed by questionable narratives, hiding the deeper contrast between teleological and deontological understandings of deliberative democracy. The latter represents the only path to formulate a theory that would not be internally contradictory.

หนังสือเล่มเล็กที่อธิบายปรากฏการณ์การรวมกลุ่มซึ่งนำไปสู่การเคลื่อนจากการเห็นด้วยเป็นการเห็นด้วยอย่างสุดๆ ซึ่งเป็นทั้งแง่บวกและลบกับสังคมได้ รวมถึงข้อสังเกตเรื่องประชาธิปไตยแบบมีส่วนร่วมว่ามีข้อจำกัดอย่างไร ในสถานการณ์ใดที่เหมาะสม โดยศาสตราจารย์ Cass R. Sunstein
คำนิยมโดย ชัชชาติ สิทธิพันธุ์ และจักกริช สังขมณี
แปลโดย เนติวิทย์ โชติภัทร์ไพศาล และชยางกูร เพ็ชรปัญญา
บรรณาธิการแปลโดย ณัฐนันท์ ทองเกื้อสกุล

Many have argued that deliberative democracy has, at best, an uncomfortable relationship with activism.  It might be thought that deliberative democracy faces an inescapable dilemma: either restrict activist conduct in ways that might exacerbate real-world injustices, or restrict its normative claims to the realm of ideal theory, making it largely irrelevant to the real world.  The idea of a deliberative system, however, may seem capable of handling this dilemma.  By focusing on the quality of deliberation at the macro-level, deliberative systems theory (DST) does not require that activists must rely exclusively, or even primarily on deliberation.  Additionally, DST suggests a kind of deliberative criteria according to which activist conduct can be assessed in the here and now.  In this article, I assess the extent to which DST really is able to avoid this dilemma.  I do not think it is impossible for DST to do so; however, I argue that it can avoid the dilemma by presupposing a broadly optimistic picture of the world.  If we reject this picture, the relevance of DST and deliberative democratic theory in general for activists will be severely limited.

Eight Day Training program in Facilitation and Computer Operation for the Structured Democratic Dialogue method. Covers Nominal Group Technique, Clustering, and Interpretive Structural Modeling using the CogniScope software as well as online dialogue on mobile phones via IdeaPrizm.

The aim of this study then is to move beyond politically oriented discussion forums by also examining the  communicative practices of participants within fan-based forums. The focus is on how participants talk politics in online informal discussion forums. By informal discussion forums, I am referring to those forums that are not bound to any formal predetermined agendas such as e-consultations or e-juries, but rather to forums who’s primary purpose is to simply provide a communicative space for talk, e.g. fan-based discussion forums, news media message boards, and Usenet newsgroups. By political talk, I am referring to everyday, informal, political conversation carried out freely between participants in these online spaces, which is often spontaneous and lacks any purpose outside the purpose of talk for talk sake, representing the practical communicative form of what Habermas (1984, p. 327) calls communicative action. It is through this type of everyday political talk whereby citizens achieve mutual understanding about the self and each other, and it represents the fundamental ingredient of the public sphere.

The purpose of this study first is a normative one; it is to examine the democratic quality of this fundamental ingredient, of the communicative practices of participants within online discussions forums in light of a set of normative conditions of the public sphere. It is also to move beyond a formal notion of deliberation (beyond rationality via argumentation) by providing a more accurate account of how the political emerges in online discussions (particularly within nonpolitically oriented forums), how people actually talk politics in those discussions, and finally, how alternative communicative forms such as humor, emotional comments, and acknowledgements interact and influence the more ‘traditional’ elements of deliberation (e.g. rational-critical debate and reciprocity). Consequently, I present the following three research questions, which are central to this study:

To what extent do the communicative practices of online political discussions satisfy the normative conditions of the process of deliberation of the public sphere?

What role, if any, do expressives (humor, emotional comments, and acknowledgements) play within online political discussions and in relation to the normative conditions of deliberation?

How does political talk emerge in nonpolitically oriented discussion forums?

Together, the answers to these questions present a more comprehensive account of online political talk. They seek not only to offer insight into the quality of such talk, but also to provide a better understanding of its expressive and affective nature. Moreover, they seek to improve our understanding of how political talk occurs outside the realm of politically oriented discussion forums, and how it emerges in such communicative spaces. Therefore, in order to answer these questions and provide this insight, I examine and compare political talk within three online discussion forums of the Guardian, Big Brother, and Wife Swap. A comparative study design with normative, descriptive, and explorative characteristics was utilized. A content analysis with both qualitative and quantitative features was employed as the primary instrument for examination. Additional textual and network analyses were carried out to provide more depth to the investigation.

This article examines social movement diffusion through a comparison between two processes: diffusion from the Arab Spring to the Spanish indignados, and from the latter to Occupy Wall Street. The comparison shows that the content and the channel of diffusion differ from one process to the other. The Spanish indignados received a sense of collective effi cacy from the Arab Spring essentially through indirect means. In the second process, the mediation of third parties facilitated the diffusion of more practical knowledge related to new forms of inclusivity and the occupation of public space. The comparison of these two processes suggests that ideational elements are easily transmitted through indirect channels, whereas behavioural innovations require interpersonal contact to be properly transmitted.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a hybrid model for citizen deliberations that bridges the gap between developments in normative deliberative theory and online participation and deliberation. The model, entitled SOWIT (Social Web for Inclusive and Transparent democracy), is designed for integration to policy making processes. It is currently being designed and developed in consultation with citizens, civil society organisations and Councillors in an Irish local authority. Our approach is rooted in Dryzek and Niemeyer's innovations (2008) in discursive representation and meta-consensus as well as Bächtiger et al.'s (2010) sequential approach to deliberation. SOWIT pioneers a dynamic implementation of meta-consensus framework for structuring and incentivising policy deliberations. In this paper we present the model, explain its normative rationale and outline the experimental framework.

A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies (ICTs) play any role in governing argument — that is, as parties engage in practical activities across space and time via ICTs, does technology matter for the interplay of argumentative content and process in managing disagreement? The case made here is that technologies do matter because they are not merely conduits of communication but have a role in the pragmatics of communication and argumentation. In particular, ICTs should be recognized as communication-information services that are delegated degrees of responsibility for managing disagreements arising from practical activities. These services are organized around practical theories for designing disagreement space. However, recognizing this relationship between argument and technology requires accounting for procedures, techniques, or rules (i.e., such as found in technology) and speech acts that are not argumentative propositions in any strict sense but that are consequential for what becomes argumentation in any setting. An account about designing disagreement space, grounded in Jackson and Jacobs’s theory of Disagreement Management, is put forward to address these issues while more generally contributing to understanding argument in context.