Civic and Community Engagement: Lecture 10

Marginalized Group Perspective in Democratic Deliberations

A variety of social perspectives is essential for meaningful democratic discussion. Without
different viewpoints, there would be no benefit in having discussions at all.
Including marginalized group perspectives in democratic discussions is valuable because it
broadens the ways we understand and approach problems. More viewpoints improve our
judgments and help us identify flaws in our thinking. This diversity of perspectives makes
decisions more complete and helps us consider a wider range of possible social and political
outcomes.
A diversity of social backgrounds and experiences strengthens democratic discussions,
making decisions more comprehensive. Marginalized group perspectives add a new
dimension to pluralism, allowing us to consider social influences that might otherwise be
overlooked.
Changes in industry and rapid urbanization have highlighted the need for public policies
around issues like hygiene, waste disposal, and health—issues that were once managed at
the household level. Since women traditionally handled these roles in the household, they
often have more knowledge on these topics than men, and their input is essential to
creating effective public policies.
Looking back, we see that more inclusive discussions benefit society. However, past
examples show how marginalized groups can improve policy, but they don't fully explain
how to solve marginalization itself.
Members of marginalized groups often show how current systems prevent them from fully
participating in society. Representation from these groups can challenge false agreements
that may come from cultural biases. It uncovers biases in norms and standards that may be
mistakenly viewed as universal or superior.
Including marginalized groups in discussions helps all participants think beyond their own
self-interest. It allows people to realize the limitations of their own experiences and
viewpoints when they interact with others who see things differently.
In examining democratic discussions, we find two main issues:
Social differences raise questions about traditional democratic theories.
To truly respect social differences, the demands of inclusive discussions are even greater
than those of standard democratic discussions.
Social Difference and Justice Claims
Critics argue that deliberative democracy places limits on speech and is biased against
marginalized groups in two main ways:
1.Some models only allow participants to speak as "citizens," not recognizing their unique
identities.
2.Justice can only be achieved when the different needs of both privileged and marginalized
groups are addressed. However, deliberative democracy discourages arguments based on
individual or group-specific interests. This means that marginalized people are often asked
to ignore their specific needs and focus on the general "common good," keeping them stuck
in the very system they want to change.
Many theorists of deliberative democracy now argue that arguments based on justice and
grounded in specific group interests should be allowed in democratic discussions, even if
they reveal differences among citizens.
Another criticism is that deliberative democracy often favors specific styles of speech that
don’t match how marginalized groups typically communicate. Cultural norms in these
discussions can silence or devalue some voices, and real-life debates are often competitive
rather than collaborative. Deliberative spaces tend to favor assertive and confrontational
speech, which typically benefits privileged groups more than marginalized groups, who may
communicate in ways that are more tentative, exploratory, or conciliatory.
In response, some say that marginalized groups have skilled advocates who can represent
their interests effectively. Iris Marion Young, a theorist, suggests a "communicative
democracy," which values other forms of expression, such as greetings, storytelling, and
passionate speech, over strict rational debate. This type of democracy could help reduce
inequalities by fostering better understanding.
Defenders of deliberative democracy argue that the main goal of democratic politics is to
make public institutions fair and to provide reasons that everyone can accept. Engaging
stories and passionate speech can encourage people to listen and benefit both privileged
and marginalized groups. While rational debate is important, emotion sometimes plays a
necessary role in achieving understanding and making real change.
Lastly, existing social practices sometimes reinforce privilege, and questioning these
practices is essential to address social injustices.
Civic and Community Engagement: Lecture 11
Defending Parochial schools
Importance of Parochial Schools: Current debates on civic education often overlook the role
of parochial schools, which many people value despite concerns that they may sometimes
challenge national identity. Minority communities frequently turn to parochial schools to
preserve their cultural and religious identity.
Challenges for Minority Groups: Parochial schools aim to develop children as independent,
liberal citizens, but they sometimes unintentionally limit their students to their community
rather than to the nation.
Cultural and Religious Observances: Religious communities have distinct practices, which
public schools may not accommodate well. For example, Muslim students fasting during
Ramadan might struggle in public schools where others continue to eat openly.
Community Belonging: Parents send their children to parochial schools not only for religious
education but also to foster a sense of belonging to their community. Public schools,
however, often expose children to diverse ideas that might draw them away from their
community.
Individuality and Liberal Citizenship: Liberal democratic societies value diversity, which
encourages individuality. This can sometimes conflict with the values of tightly-knit religious
communities that try to shield children from outside influences to maintain their traditions.
Autonomy and Diversity: Liberals believe that interacting with diverse people and ideas
fosters autonomy, where individuals make life choices based on personal reflection rather
than imposed traditions. John Stuart Mill argues that a person with "character" makes
choices that come from within, shaped by their own culture but not directed by it.
The Liberal Critique of Parochial Schools: Some liberals worry that parochial schools restrict
children from fully participating in liberal, diverse societies. However, moderate religious
communities allow children to learn about the world while staying connected to their faith.
Balancing Community and Broader Society: Moderate parochial communities expose
children to the wider world through activities like sports or scouting, helping them engage
with other communities while maintaining their own identity.
Funding Parochial Schools: Some argue that states should support the secular aspects of
parochial education but avoid funding religious teaching. In places like Britain, public funding
is provided as long as parochial schools meet certain standards.
Public and Parochial School Cooperation: Cooperation between public and parochial
schools could allow students from different backgrounds to interact, fostering a common
sense of citizenship. Such partnerships could include lending public school teachers to teach
secular subjects in parochial schools without incorporating religious content.
Conclusion: While some parochial schools emphasize community over diversity, cooperation
between public and parochial institutions could provide a balanced approach, giving
students exposure to diverse ideas and promoting unity without forcing cultural assimilation.