Political Theory

H01(c) - Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Ideology

Date: Jun 12 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 395

Chair/Président/Présidente : Shehnoor Khurram (University of Toronto)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Spencer McKay (University of British Columbia)

Democracy, Empathy, and the Ideological Turing Test: Victor Bruzzone (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Today’s political world features hyper- partisanship, rapidly spreading misinformation online, and declining trust in institutions. Under these conditions, cultivating empathetic understanding takes on a special importance because it can make meaningful deliberation possible. One promising measure of empathetic understanding is what Bryan Caplan coined as the “ideological Turing test” (ITT). In this exercise, participants who hold views on polarizing political issues attempt to “pass” as their ideological opponent by providing reasons for why people with the opposite view might support it. There has been some recent literature that defends the use of ‘negative’ emotions (like anger) in political discourse or contests the value of empathy on the grounds that it conceals power dynamics (Scudder, 2020; Thompson, 2017). In this paper, I make three arguments. First, I argue that the ITT is a plausible way of measuring empathetic understanding because it requires that participants have been listening to their ideological opposites. I argue this addresses many criticisms of empathy-based approaches to democracy. Second, I argue that we are justified to exclude deliberators from having any binding political authority over us if they cannot demonstrate empathetic understanding (by passing the ITT). I argue that because negative emotions (like anger) can interfere with our ability to have empathetic understanding, the value of its contribution is questionable. Finally, I outline the idea of an “empathocracy” built on sortition assemblies where those selected can only serve if they pass the ITT.

Taming the Machine: Democratic control over bureaucracy machinery in the republican state: Yi Yang (McGill University)
Abstract: This paper provides a critical analysis of Philip Pettit’s neo-republican vision of the state, with a specific focus on its approach to democratic control over bureaucratic administration. Effective democratic control over the state is a cornerstone for achieving non-domination. Pettit places excessive emphasis on the design of the legislature as the main vehicle for control, while leaving bureaucratic administration as mere an executor of law. I argue that this exclusive reliance on the legislature for democratic control is inadequate as it fails to properly constrain the bureaucratic machinery and underestimates its vital role in the republican state, in particular securing citizens’ socio-economic freedom and social justice. I raise three fundamental criticisms. First, bureaucratic officials require a certain level of discretion in their functions to effectively pursue non-domination. The prevailing legislative-centric approach fails to provide it with sufficient guides and even discourages for its exercise. Second, Pettit’s model suggests establishing impartial, insulated bodies to counteract democracy’s shortcomings and make crucial decisions on public affairs. This approach empowers bureaucratic domination and paradoxically contradicts with the legislature’s democratic authority. Third, bureaucratic administration in Pettit’s model assumes an all-encompassing role managing nearly all aspects of social life, which sidelines civic engagement and renders citizens marginalized, akin to a form of servitude. To address these limitations, I propose a revised model of democratic control which does not limit democratic supervision and civic engagement solely at the stage of law-making but also law-implementation.

Epistemic Injustice and Corporate Structuring: Boundary Making, Membership, and Epistemic Rights: Chi Kwok (Lingnan University)
Abstract: Outsourcing has become a significant trend in corporate restructuring. The challenges and injustices faced by labor in outsourcing have been extensively discussed in scholarly literature. These challenges are typically categorized into two main approaches: the injustice approach and the welfare approach. The injustice approach highlights the violations of basic rights and the structural disadvantages experienced by outsourced workers. In contrast, the welfare approach examines the ethics of outsourcing practices through a consequentialist lens, focusing on the overall outcomes. In this paper, I introduce an epistemic perspective on outsourcing. I contend that from an epistemic standpoint, outsourcing can be problematic when it is a calculated effort to employ a multifaceted corporate structure to diminish epistemic rights, specifically the right to be heard and treated as an epistemic equal. This epistemic critique of outsourcing enriches the current literature, illustrating how outsourcing can be seen as an attempt to redefine the boundaries of who deserves the right to be heard.