Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
It seems there is an insuperable contradiction between two conceptions of social change : one rooted in collective action and critique by activists, the other based on the construction of a collective agreement after a fair deliberation, as argued by deliberative democrats. Through a dialogue between these two positions, this essay casts a new light on certain limitations of deliberative democratic norms, especially in a context of wide structural inequalities, making public discussion hardly ever equitable. In so doing this essay emphasizes the democratic virtues of non-deliberative and contentious political practices. It is only by opening deliberation to non-argumentative and critical forms of expression that it can achieve its ideal of inclusion and social change.
Iris Marion Young (Mon,) studied this question.