Lepoutre, M. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7573-8585
(2023)
Discursive optimism defended.
Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 22 (3).
pp. 357-374.
ISSN 1741-3060
doi: 10.1177/1470594X231179665
Abstract/Summary
This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech in Divided Times, against the critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers and responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that the “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, and that, if this constraint is to apply in divided circumstances, its justificatory constituency must be idealized. The second challenge contends that the resistance of hate speech and misinformation to counterspeech cannot adequately be explained by considerations of salience, and therefore cannot adequately by countered (as I suggest) by “positive” forms of counterspeech. Finally, the last challenge objects that the ideal of inclusive public discourse I defend remains, as pessimists allege, excessively idealistic.
Altmetric Badge
Item Type | Article |
URI | https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/112036 |
Item Type | Article |
Refereed | Yes |
Divisions | Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Politics, Economics and International Relations > Politics and International Relations |
Publisher | Sage |
Download/View statistics | View download statistics for this item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record