Beyond Adversary Democracy

Rating:
Summary: Political Science and Theory
Review: There remains a strong divide in the study of politics between people who consider themselves political scientists and political theorists. When Mansbridge's book first came out, it was praised for demonstrating that one can do both. And the praise is deserved.

The book focusses on two communities. The first, a small town in the Northeast, exemplifies town hall democracy. The second, an organization committed to providing various kinds of community help, exemplifies early seventies' attempts to have completely egalitarian organizations.

Mansbridge mentions that she included both because she had intended to contrast an adversarial democracy (the town meeting) with a unitary democracy (the help line), but that her data complicated the neat dichotomy. Mansbridge observed each community trying to resolve a difficult conflict, and she interviewed various members.

The book is rich, and I have found it very useful for thinking about why Americans have so much trouble imagining that discursive conflict might be a good thing. Mansbridge has beautiful quotes from people describing their discomfort with argument, and I think she's right to draw some general conclusions from them.

Although I'm not a political theorist, I found the book intelligent and intelligible, and I highly recommend it to someone who is interested in conflict within organizations.

Rating:
Summary: Political Science and Theory
Review: There remains a strong divide in the study of politics between people who consider themselves political scientists and political theorists. When Mansbridge's book first came out, it was praised for demonstrating that one can do both. And the praise is deserved.

The book focusses on two communities. The first, a small town in the Northeast, exemplifies town hall democracy. The second, an organization committed to providing various kinds of community help, exemplifies early seventies' attempts to have completely egalitarian organizations.

Mansbridge mentions that she included both because she had intended to contrast an adversarial democracy (the town meeting) with a unitary democracy (the help line), but that her data complicated the neat dichotomy. Mansbridge observed each community trying to resolve a difficult conflict, and she interviewed various members.

The book is rich, and I have found it very useful for thinking about why Americans have so much trouble imagining that discursive conflict might be a good thing. Mansbridge has beautiful quotes from people describing their discomfort with argument, and I think she's right to draw some general conclusions from them.

Although I'm not a political theorist, I found the book intelligent and intelligible, and I highly recommend it to someone who is interested in conflict within organizations.