IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v15y2016i3p209-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political theory and public opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Baderin

    (University of Oxford, UK)

Abstract

How should political theorists go about their work if they are democrats? Given their democratic commitments, should they develop theories that are responsive to the views and concerns of their fellow citizens at large? Is there a balance to be struck, within political theory, between truth seeking and democratic responsiveness? The article addresses this question about the relationship between political theory, public opinion and democracy. I criticize the way in which some political theorists have appealed to the value of democratic legitimacy in an attempt to justify a more opinion-sensitive approach to their work. Specifically, I identify a problematic model in the existing literature, which I term ‘democratic restraint’: an approach on which the theorist moderates her normative principles in response to evidence about public attitudes in order to enhance the legitimacy of her account. This model renders the discipline newly vulnerable to an otherwise misguided objection that political theory seeks to pre-empt democratic politics. I trace the problem with the democratic restraint model to its flawed underlying conception of democratic legitimacy. The article then outlines a more appealing ‘democratic underlabourer’ view of the status of political theory and draws out the implications of this alternative account for the role of public opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Baderin, 2016. "Political theory and public opinion," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(3), pages 209-233, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:3:p:209-233
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X15621044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X15621044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X15621044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rutger Claassen, 2011. "Making Capability Lists: Philosophy versus Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 59(3), pages 491-508, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deneulin, Séverine & Zampini-Davies, Augusto, 2017. "Engaging development and religion: Methodological groundings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 110-121.
    2. Philip Kinghorn & Joanna Coast, 2018. "Assessing the capability to experience a 'good death': A qualitative study to directly elicit expert views on a new supportive care measure grounded in Sen's capability approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Pelenc, Jérôme & Ballet, Jérôme, 2015. "Strong sustainability, critical natural capital and the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 36-44.
    4. Thomas Fossen, 2014. "The grammar of political obligation," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 215-236, August.
    5. Lasse Nielsen, 2018. "Playing for social equality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 17(4), pages 427-446, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:3:p:209-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.