The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy
Abstract
How can we create a vital and inclusive pluralistic democracy? Public Deliberation offers answers to this question by showing how democratic theory and democratic practice can be remade to face new challenges. Arguing against the skepticism about democracy that flourishes today on both ends of the political spectrum, James Bohman proposes a new model of public deliberation that will allow a renewed expansion of democratic practice, even in the face of increasing pluralism, inequality, and social complexity.Bohman builds on early Critical Theory and on the recent work of Jurgen Habermas and John Rawls (while taking into consideration criticisms of their work) to create a picture of a richer democratic practice based on the public reasoning of citizens. Starting with a pragmatic account of how deliberation actually works to promote agreements and cooperation, he develops a realistic model of deliberation by gradually introducing and analyzing the major tests facing deliberative democracy: cultural pluralism, social inequalities, social complexity, and community-wide biases and ideologies. The result is a new understanding of the ways in which public deliberation can be extended to meet the needs of modern societies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399707300703 · Cited by 1,082
A problem-based approach to democratic theory
WARREN, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000605 · Cited by 478
The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state
Song, S. (2012) · International Theory · doi:10.1017/s1752971911000248 · Cited by 329
Schmidt, V., & Wood, M. (2019) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12615 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1997-05-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 09
- Pages
- 34-5341-34-5341
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1517493796
- Cited by
- 1,544
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.34-5341
- The paper
- Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. (1997). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.34-5341
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.