Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:03:43.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Are We Doing When We Are Doing Democratic Theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Dannica Fleuß and
Gary S. Schaal
Dannica Fleuß*
Affiliation:
Hamburg’s Helmut Schmidt University
Gary S. Schaal*
Affiliation:
Hamburg’s Helmut Schmidt University
*
E-mail: dannica.fleuss@hsu-hh.de
E-mail: gschaal@hsu-hh.de
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyzes the (often implicit) understanding of democratic theory that is presupposed by scholars who engage in this practice and provides an answer to the question: “What are we doing when we are doing democratic theory?” We flesh out the core features of this scholarly activity by relating it to and differentiating it from assessments made from the perspective of political philosophy and political science. We argue that democratic theory aims at proposing institutional devices that are (a) problem-solving approaches and (b) embodiments of normative principles. This two-faced structure requires democratic theorists to engage in feedback loops with political philosophy on the one hand and empirical political science on the other. This implies that democratic theorists must adopt a dynamic approach: democratic theories must “fit” societal circumstances. In consequence, they must be adapted in case of fundamental societal transformations. We exemplify this dynamic character by referring to digitalization-induced changes in democratic societies and their implications for democratic theorists’ practice.

Keywords

dynamic democratic theoryinstitutional devicespolitical philosophyproblem-oriented democratic theoryproceduralism

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , December 2019, pp. 12 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Berghahn Books 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Binns, Reuben. 2018. “Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason.” Philosophy and Technology 31 (4): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. 2017. “Moderne Technik in Asylverfahren.”Google Scholar
www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Meldungen/DE/2017/20170726-am-vorstellung-modellprojekt-bamberg.htmlGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert Alan. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Desmarais, Sarah, and Jay, Singh. 2013. Risk Assessment Instruments Validated and Implemented in Correctional Settings in the United States. Report to the Justice Programs Office. School of Public Affairs. Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/11204/4006.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 2018 (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Oxford: Holt.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John, and Jeffrey, Berejikian. 1993. “Reconstructive Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 87 (1): 48–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David, ed. 2012. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, ed. David, Estlund, 3–21. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, Walter Bryce. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1): 167–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göhler, Gerhard. 1996. “Institutions in Political Theory.” In The European Union and Member States: Towards Institutional Fusion? ed. Dieter Rometsch and Wolfgang Wessels, 1–19. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert, and Philip, Pettit. 2007. “Introduction.” In A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E., Goodin and Philip, Pettit, 1–6. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Helbing, Dirk. 2015: The Automation of Society Is Next. North Charleston: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
Herian, Robert. 2018. “Taking Blockchain Seriously.” Law and Critique 29 (2): 163–171. doi:10.1007/s10978-018-9226-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, Julia, and Konrad, Lischka. 2018. Damit Maschinen den Menschen dienen. Report to the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. doi:10.11586/2018019.Google Scholar
Legg, Catherine, and Christopher, Hookway. 2019. “Pragmatism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), ed. Edward N., Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/pragmatism/ (accessed 27.6.2019).Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Manski, Sarah, and Ben, Manski. 2018. “No Gods, No Masters, No Coders? The Future of Sovereignty in a Blockchain World.” Law and Critique 29 (2): 151–162. doi:10.1007/s10978-018-9225-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James G, and Johan P, Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. Cambridge, UK: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Marjanovic, Olivera, Dubravka, Cecez-Kecmanovic, and Richard, Vidgen. 2018. “Algorithmic Pollution: Understanding and Responding to Negative Consequences of Algorithmic Decision-Making.” In Living with Monsters? Social Implications of Algorithmic Phenomena, Hybrid Agency, and the Performativity of Technology, ed. Ulrike, Schultze, Margunn, Aanestad, Magnus, Mähring, Carsten, Østerlund, and Kai, Riemer, 31–47. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04091-8_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norden, Lawrence, and Christopher, Famighetti. 2015. “America's Voting Machines at Risk.” Cambridge, UK: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1994. “Designing Institutions for East European Transitions.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E., Goodin, 199–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pasquale, Frank. 2016. The Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulin, Alois, Leonidas G., Anthopoulos, and Christopher G., Reddick, eds. 2017. Beyond Bureaucracy: Towards Sustainable Governance Information. Cham: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2009. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reijers, Wessel, Iris, Wuisman, Morshed, Mannan, Primavera De, Filippi, Christopher, Wray, Vienna, Rae-Looi, Angela Cubillos, Vélez, and Liav, Orgad. 2018. “Now the Code Runs Itself: on-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies.” Topoi 6 (1): 45–55. doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9626-5.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W., Sarah A., Binder, and Bert A., Rockman, eds. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2015. “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2): 345–365. doi:10.1017/S1537592715000079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2003. “Enacting Democracy.” Political Studies 51 (1): 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2011. “Slow Theory: Taking Time over Transnational Democratic Representation.” Ethics and Global Politics 4(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtz, David. 2011. “Nonideal Theory: What It Is and What It Needs to Be.” Ethics 121 (4): 772–796. doi:10.1086/660816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtz, David. 2016. “A Realistic Political Ideal.” Social Philosophy and Policy 33 (1–2): 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0265052516000406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtz, David. 2017. “Realistic Idealism.” In Methods in Analytical Political Theory, ed. Adrian, Blau, 131–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Natasha. 2015. “Bringing Big Data to the Fight Against Benefits Fraud.” New York Times, December 20. www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/technology/bringing-big-data-to-the-fight-against-benefits-fraud.html.Google Scholar
Stalder, Felix, 2017: “Algorithms We Need.” Netzpolitik.org, January 15. https://netzpoli-tik.org/20177/algorithms-we-need/.Google Scholar
Strübing, Jörg. 2007. “Research as Pragmatic Problem-Solving: The Pragmatist Roots of Empirically-Grounded Theorizing.” In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, ed. Antony Bryant und Kathy Charmaz, 580–602, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Intercept. 2015. “US Government Designated Prominent Al Jazeera Journalist as Member of Al Qaeda.” https://theintercept.com/document/2015/05/08/skynet-courier/.Google Scholar
Veale, Michael, Max Van, Kleek, and Reuben, Binns. 2018. “Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making.” In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. Regan, Mandryk and Mark, Hancock, 1–14. Cambridge, UK: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174014.Google Scholar
Veale, Tony, and Mike, Cook. 2018. Twitterbots: Making Machines That Make Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, Karen. 2019. “Regulation by Blockchain: The Emerging Battle for Supremacy between the Code of Law and Code as Law.” Modern Law Review 82 (2): 207–239. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweig, Katharina A., Georg, Wenzelburger, and Tobias D, Krafft. 2018. “On Chances and Risks of Security Related Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems.” European Journal for Security Research 3 (2): 181–203. doi:10.1007/s41125-018-0031-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar