IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v6y2007i3p329-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology

Author

Listed:
  • Fabienne Peter

    (University of Warwick, UK, f.peter@warwick.ac.uk)

Abstract

A conception of legitimacy is at the core of normative theories of democracy. Many different conceptions of legitimacy have been put forward, either explicitly or implicitly. In this article, I shall first provide a taxonomy of conceptions of legitimacy that can be identified in contemporary democratic theory. The taxonomy covers both aggregative and deliberative democracy. I then argue for a conception of democratic legitimacy that takes the epistemic dimension of public deliberation seriously. In contrast to standard interpretations of epistemic democracy, however, the conception I put forward avoids procedure-independent standards of correctness. Instead, it relies on a procedural social epistemology and defines legitimacy entirely in terms of the fairness of procedures. I call this conception of democratic legitimacy `Pure Epistemic Proceduralism'. I shall argue that it should be preferred over `Rational Epistemic Proceduralism', the conception of legitimacy that underlies the standard interpretation of epistemic democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabienne Peter, 2007. "Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 6(3), pages 329-353, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:6:y:2007:i:3:p:329-353
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X07081303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X07081303
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X07081303?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2016. "Positional views as the cornerstone of Sen’s idea of justice," Post-Print halshs-01366695, HAL.
    2. Cathrine Holst & Silje H. Tørnblad, 2015. "Variables and Challenges in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 166-178.
    3. Dannica Fleuß & Karoline Helbig & Gary S. Schaal, 2018. "Four Parameters for Measuring Democratic Deliberation: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges and How to Respond," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21.
    4. Fleuß, Dannica & Helbig, Karoline & Schaal, Gary S., 2018. "Four Parameters for Measuring Democratic Deliberation: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges and How to Respond," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 11-21.

    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:6:y:2007:i:3:p:329-353. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.