Uit de toon, in het debat | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 44, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0167-2444
  • E-ISSN: 2949-8651

Abstract

Abstract

These days, increasing voices are calling for a ban on public debate. Debate is said to increase differences and act as a divisive societal factor. A recent report by the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (2022) indicates that most Dutch people are concerned about polarization and the hardening of the political and public debate. In this essay, however, Danielle Arets argues that we should embrace debate; we have lost the ability to disagree appropriately. To revitalize the debate, Arets argues that we need to redesign the public debate and look for ways of deliberation that especially involve the arts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/FEP2023.2.003.ARET
2023-09-01
2024-02-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/01672444/44/2/FEP2023.2.003.ARET.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/FEP2023.2.003.ARET&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Achterhuis, H. J. & Steenhuis, P. H.Tegendenken: een noodzaak in het publieke debat. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Achterhuis, H. J. & Koning, N.De kunst van het vreedzaam vechten: een zoektocht naar de bronnen van geweldbeteugeling. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arets, D. & Raijmakers, B.“Design and Dissent”, London: Design Research Society, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arets, D. & Raijmakers, B.“Redesign democratic debates”, in: Conference Proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management2 (2019) 1, 215-224.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arets, D., WernaartB., LlevskiD., Kamp, J.“The right to Öffentlichkeit”, in Applied Human Rights, Wageningen University, forthcoming, 2022. https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-943-5_8
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arets, D.“Democracy in the Making”, in: Theodoridou, D.Publication Practicing Democracy, through performance, Athene, Nissos Publ.2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bovens, M. & Wille, A, Diploma democracy: The rise of political meritocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Iannelli, L., & Musarò, P., Performative Citzenship: Public art, urban design, and political participation. Milaan: Mimesis, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baalen, S. van, J.Gouman, & P.Verhoef, “In gesprek over het aanpassen van erfelijk DNA van embryo’s – Lessen voor een maatschappelijke dialoog”, Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carpentier, N., & Cammaerts, B.“Hegemony, democracy, agonism and journalism: An interview with Chantal Mouffe”. Journalism Studies7 (2006) 6, 964-975.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dahlberg, L.“The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere”, Information, communication & society, 4 (2001) 4, 615-633.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Caso, O., Muñoz Aparici, M., Mostert-van der Sar, M., Troxler, P., Hermans, M., Oomes, M., & Heil, V.“Handboek Makerlab: Maakplaatsen in bibliotheken”, in: Handboek Makerlab. Deventer: Rijnbrink, 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A.“A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions”. Ecology and Society, 19 (2014) 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fishkin, J. S.“Deliberative democracy”, in: The Blackwell guide to social and political philosophy, 221-238. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Habermas, J.“Habermas: Questions and counterquestions”, Praxis International, 4 (1984) 3, 229-249.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hsiao, Y. T., Lin, S. Y., Tang, A., Narayanan, D., & Sarahe, C.“vTaiwan: An empirical study of open consultation process in Taiwan”, SocArXiv. July4, doi:10.31235/osf.io/xyhft, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Huijer, M.“De zachte kracht van de dialoog”, Amsterdam: Domela Nieuwenhuis Fonds, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kobayashi, “Future Design: A new policymaking system for future generations”https://cepr.org/voxeu/blogs-and-reviews/future-design-new-policymaking-system-future-generations, 2019
  19. Korteweg, A., & Huisman, E., Lobbyend, de schaduwmachten die ons besturen. Breda: Uitgeverij De Geus, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Latour, B., “To Modernize or to Ecologize ? That is the Question”, in: KristinAsdal, BritaBrenna and IngunnMoser (editors) Technoscience, The Politics of Intervention. Oslo: Unipub. 1998, pp.249-272.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Latour, B.Oog in oog met Gaia: Acht lezingen over het Nieuwe Klimaatregime. Amsterdam: Octavo, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Luyendijk, J.Kunnen we praten. Amsterdam: Atlas Contact, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meijer, A. J., Lips, M., & Chen, K.“Open governance: A new paradigm for understanding urban governance in an information age”, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 1 (2019) 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mouffe, C.The return of the political (Vol. 8). London/New York: Verso2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mouffe, C., Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London/New York: Verso Books, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mouffe, C.“Radical democracy or liberal democracy?”, in Radical democracy. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013, pp. 19-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Miltenburg, E., Geurkink, B., Tunderman, S., Beekers, D., & Ridder, J. D. (2022). “Burgerperspectieven Bericht 2”, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Raijmakers, B., & Arets, D.“Thinking Through Making–An Approach To Orchestrating Innovation Between Design and Anthropology”, http://www.crisprepository.nl/_uploaded/RaijmakersArets_2014_ThinkingThroughMaking.pdf, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rawls, J., A theory of justice. Revised edition. Cambridge Ma: Harvard University Press, 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rijssemus, T. S. G. Het journalistieke weten: Over de objectiviteit van betrokken journalistiek. Utrecht: Utrecht University (diss.), 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sandel, M. J.“Justice: what’s the right thing to do?”, The Hedgehog Review12 (2010) 1, 85-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sennett, R., The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sennett, R.“The open city”, in: In The Post-Urban World. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017, pp. 97-106.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Steenhuis, H. (2017) Mari Huijer was vooral een tussendenker, Trouw https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/marli-huijer-was-vooral-een-tussendenker~bca42b49/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stikker, M.Het internet is stuk: maar we kunnen het repareren. Amsterdam: Singel Uitgeverijen, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Swierstra, T.“Ethiek op zijn plaats zetten. Normatieve ethiek als empirische filosofie”, Krisis–Tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie3 (2002) 3, 18-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Swierstra, T., Van de Bovenkamp, H., & Trappenburg, M.“Forging a fit between technology and morality: The Dutch debate on organ transplants”, Technology in Society32 (2010) 1, 55-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Van der Burg, R., Chavannes, E., Lafour, G., Rotman, M., Van der Woude, A.“Voor ons en natuurlijk dankzij de here god”, Groene Amsterdammer/ https://www.groene.nl/artikel/voor-ons-en-natuurlijk-dankzij-de-here-god, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M., De platformsamenleving: Strijd om publieke waardenineenonline wereld (p. 180). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Doorn, M.Waarom we beter denken dan we denken. Gorredijk: Noordboek, 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Reybrouck, D.Tegen verkiezingen. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Reybroek, D“Peil het volk eens terwijl het denkt”, De Correspondent: https://decorrespondent.nl/512/peil-het-volk-eens-terwijl-het-denkt/ef5c8ec0-2e40-08cf-32f2-bcc756dcba9a, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Verweij, M., & Damasio, A.The somatic marker hypothesis and political life. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wallaert, S. & NicoKoningDe waarde van woede. Eindhoven: Damon, 2021. (Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, 114 (2022) 2, 215-219.)
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wernaart, B., Arets, D., Van Hoeckel, M.“The Constitutional Friction and the voice of the underrepresented Using the freedom of expression as a bottom-up mechanism for change, Applied Human Rights”, Wageningen University, https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-943-5_13, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. WHO. Human genome editing: a framework for governance. Genève: World Health Organization, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/FEP2023.2.003.ARET
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/FEP2023.2.003.ARET
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error