The document summarizes an alternative justification for democratic deliberation called symbolic-cognitive proceduralism (SCP). SCP combines elements of Estlund's epistemic proceduralism with additional rationales to argue that democratic procedures are legitimate due to their expressive symbolic functions and cognitive functions, rather than relying solely on epistemic justifications. SCP is proposed as a model that can withstand critiques of epistemic rationales like Ingham's, since it does not depend on consensus or procedure-independent standards.

1. SYMBOLIC-COGNITIVE PROCEDURALISM
AS A ROBUST JUSTIFICATION
FOR DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION
Robert C. Richards, Jr. and John Gastil
The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Communication Arts & Sciences
Presentation at National Communication
Association, November 2013

2. Overview
Ingham’s Critique of the Epistemic Rationale
Alternative Justifications
Symbolic-Cognitive Proceduralism

3. Estlund’s
Epistemic Proceduralism
Estlund (2008) uses the criminal jury as a model to justify
deliberative democratic procedures

4. Estlund: Jury Deliberation
as Model of Legitimacy
Public deems jury verdicts legitimate, provided jury
followed deliberative procedures
Source of jury’s legitimacy: “epistemic virtues” of
deliberative procedures; give jury > 0.5 probability of
reaching correct verdict
Estlund argues jury is analogous to legislature and
executive

5. Ingham’s Critique
Estlund’s model is inconsistent with “two widely shared
beliefs about democracy”:
1. Nonconvergence Constraint: Consensus is impossible in
a diverse society
2. Constraint on Evidence: Procedure-independent
standards aren’t plausible, because agreement on those
standards is impossible

6. Results of Ingham’s Critique
Estlund’s jury model violates both of Ingham’s constraints

7. Alternative Justifications for
Deliberative Democracy
Deliberative democratic procedures may be justified on the
basis of their:
• Intrinsic Value
• Expressive Value
• Cognitive Value (Unrelated to Voting Decisions)
• Ethical Value
• Communal Value

8. Expressive
and Cognitive Rationales
can be combined with Estlund’s “jury analogy” to form a
justification that withstands Ingham’s critique

9. Symbolic-Cognitive
Proceduralism (SCP)
Elements of Estlund’s epistemic proceduralist theory of
legitimacy can be included in a new model that can
withstand Ingham’s critique
This new model we call symbolic-cognitive proceduralism

10. SCP: Account of Legitimacy
Jury deliberation furnishes the model for the legitimacy of
democratic deliberative procedures
Source of legitimacy: Expressive/Symbolic and Cognitive
functions of the procedures

11. SCP: Symbolic Functions
Jury’s deliberative procedures express fundamental values
of democracy:
• Popular Sovereignty
• Equality
• Rational Discourse

12. SCP: Cognitive Functions
Jury’s deliberative procedures increase jurors’:
• Knowledge of issues and solution options
• Understanding of their own and others’ interests, values,
and cognitive repertoires
• Understanding of collective interests
• Political efficacy (internal and external)
• Willingness to be civically engaged

13. Empirical Content of SCP
Individual Level Cognition/Behavior
Reflective
self-regulation
Macro-Level Social Beliefs/Demands
Procedural
Integrity of
Democratic
Deliberation
Cognitive
function
Knowledge,
Competence, and
Civic Attitudes of
Participants
Public demand
for deliberation
Symbolic
function
Ambassadorial
function
Public Legitimacy
of Deliberative
Democratic
Processes

14. SCP: Effect on Legitimacy
Symbolic and cognitive functions lead public to deem jury’s
verdicts legitimate
Jury remains analogous to the legislature and executive

15. SCP: Not Susceptible to
Ingham’s Critique
since SCP’s account of legitimacy does not depend on an
epistemic justification

16. Conclusion
Ingham’s (2013) critique calls into question Estlund’s – and
all other – epistemic justifications for deliberative
democracy
Symbolic-cognitive proceduralism justifies democratic
deliberation on the basis of its expressive and cognitive
functions
Symbolic-cognitive proceduralism is not vulnerable to
Ingham’s critique

17. References
• Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven, CT: Yale University
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Press.
Allen, M. (2009). Civil disobedience and terrorism: Testing the limits of deliberative
democracy. Theoria, 56, 15–39.
Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme, 3(1), 8-22. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/journals/episteme/v003/3.1anderson.html
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib
(Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67-94).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model
of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 398-422.
Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid
measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political
Communication, 19, 73-93.
Christiano, T. (1996). The rule of the many: Fundamental issues in democratic theory.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cohen, J. (1996). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),
Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 95-119). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

18. References (continued)
• Cohen, J. (2003). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In D. Matravers & J. Pike (Eds.),
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 342-360). London:
Routledge.
Cohen, J. (2010). Rousseau: A free community of equals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. London: Verso.
Consolini, P. (1992). Learning by doing justice: Private jury service and political attitudes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive
participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of
Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
Dewey, J. (1976). Valuation and experimental knowledge. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle
works of John Dewey, 1899–1924 (vol. 13, pp. 3-28). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Dewey, J. (1981). Creative democracy: The task before us. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later
works of John Dewey, 1925–1953 (vol. 14, Essays, pp. 224–230). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2003a). The majoritarian premise and constitutionalism. In T. Christiano (Ed.),
Philosophy and democracy: An anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2003b). What is equality? Part 4: Political equality. In T. Christiano (Ed.),
Philosophy and democracy: An anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Citations are to
Amazon Kindle edition.]

19. References (continued)
• Dwyer, W. L. (2002). In the hands of the people. New York: St. Martin’s.
• Elster, J. (2003). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In T. Christiano (Ed.),
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Philosophy and democracy: An anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Estlund, D. M. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Farrar, C., Fishkin, J. S., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C., & Paluck, E. L. (2010). Disaggregating
deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a Deliberative Poll. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 333347. doi:10.1017/S0007123409990433
Farrell, H., & Shalizi, C. (2012, May 23). Cognitive democracy. Crooked Timber. Web log post. Retrieved
from http://crookedtimber.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cognitive_democracy_may20121.pdf
Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., and Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury
deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political
Communication, 16, 3-23.
Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. (2010). Evaluation report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon
Citizens’ Initiative Review. Seattle: University of Washington Department of Communication. Retrieved from
http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/OregonLegislativeReportCIR.pdf

20. References (continued)
• Habermas, J. (1975). The legitimation crisis of late capitalism. Trans. T. McCarthy. Boston,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1983). Theory of communicative action (vol. 1). Reason and the rationalization
of society. T. McCarthy (Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action (vol. 2). Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason. T. McCarthy (Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press
Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law
and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996b). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),
Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21-30). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hartz-Karp, J. (2007). Understanding deliberativeness: Bridging theory and practice.
International Journal of Public Participation, 1(2). Retrieved from
http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=258
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-making
performance. In L. R. Frey, D. Gouran, and M. S. Poole, eds., The handbook of group
communication theory and research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hong, L., & Page, S. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of
high-ability problem solvers. PNAS, 101(46), 16385-16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101
Ingham, S. (2013). Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy. Politics,
Philosophy & Economics. doi:10.1177/1470594X12460642

21. References (continued)
• Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (2011). The priority of democracy: Political consequences of
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
pragmatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Knobloch, K., & Gastil, J. (2013). Participant accounts of political transformation. In L.
Carson, J. Gastil, et al. (Eds.), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the future of
deliberative democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
List, C., & Goodin, R. E. (2001). Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet jury
theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 277-306. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00128
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in
Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455–487. doi:10.1017/S0007123402000194
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Follesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C.,
Manin, B., & Marti, J. L. (2010). The place of self interest and the role of power in deliberative
democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 64-100.
McAfee, N., McKenzie, R., & Mathews, D. (1990). Hard choices. Dayton, OH: Kettering
Foundation.
Mill, J. S. (1966). Considerations on representative government. In On liberty, Representative
government, The subjection of women: Three essays (pp. 145-426). London: Oxford
University Press.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms,
schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

22. References (continued)
• Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Pincock, H. (2012). Does deliberation make better citizens? In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, M.
Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact
of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 135-162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (2011). Political liberalism (expanded ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Rosell, S. A., & Gantwerk, H. (2010). Moving beyond polls and focus groups. In D.
Yankelovich & W. Friedman (Eds.), Toward wiser public judgment (pp. 110-128). Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (2002). The social contract. In S. Dunn (Ed.), The social contract and The
first and second discourses (pp. 149-256). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sunstein, C. (1996). On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, 144, 2021-2053.
Tracy, K. (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study in deliberation and dissent.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Warren, M. E. (1993). Can participatory democracy produce better selves? Psychological
dimensions of Habermas’s discursive model of democracy. Political Psychology, 14, 209–
234.
Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex
world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Zarefsky, D. (2008). Two faces of democratic rhetoric. In T. F. McDorman & D. M.
Timmerman, eds., Rhetoric and democracy: pedagogical and political practices (pp 115-137).
East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

23. Acknowledgements
• Grateful thanks to:
• Professor Dr. Sean Ingham, University of Georgia School of Public
and International Affairs, Department of Political Science
• Professor Dr. John Christman of The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Philosophy

24. Contact
• Robert C. Richards, Jr., JD, MSLIS, MA, BA
• PhD Candidate
• The Pennsylvania State University Department of Communication
Arts and Sciences
• Email: rcr5122@psu.edu
• Web: http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/