Hans Asenbaum

Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project of inclusion, equality, and freedom. Yet these ideals have been produced within a context structured by colonial power. This article argues that if deliberative democracy is to unfold its full democratic potential, it needs to face its colonial legacies and position a decolonizing ethos at its center. The article proposes a framework consisting of six moves toward decolonizing deliberative democracy—three deconstructive and three reconstructive: 1. acknowledging modernity's violence; 2. recognizing epistemic injustices within the knowledge production of deliberative democracy; 3. criticizing the colonial drive of deliberative institutions; 4. theorizing from the bottom up by and with Indigenous and marginalized groups; 5. engaging in an open dialogue with the Global South scholarship; 6. focusing on emancipation.

Democratic politics requires the democratic subject’s identifiability to enable accountability. This requirement, stabilizing identities’ classificatory categories of race, sexuality, class and gender, entails essentialist tendencies and invites stereotyping. This essay conjures an imaginary of a democratic politics beyond recognition, a democracy powered by the actions of perceptible yet unidentifiable subjects. This form of democratic engagement allows the subject to show up Footnote** any wayFootnote**, a concept signifying the agency but also the confusion of unrecognizability. In doing so, the essay expands the politics of becoming from democratizing the construction of the self to cultivating democratic relations with the other. It makes the case for (1) unrecognizing, (2) sustaining and (3) co-constructing the other in order to (4) generate ‘other spaces’ or democratic heterotopias.

Objects, their material affordances, and agentic potentials are neglected by research on democratic participation. This article draws on new materialist assemblage theory to make sense of objects in participatory settings and explores the claim that objects may act as participants. It conceptualises participatory processes, commonly framed as democratic innovations, as democratic assemblages, which draws attention to the affective role of nonhumans, including material objects. These assemblages function as a democratic microverse that prefigures democratic futures. To deepen and substantiate these theoretical claims, the article infuses new materialist thinking with ethnographic observations from junk playgrounds, in which human participants interact with discarded materials in response to a political question. We observe how objects resist, invite, and transform humans and make the case for more playful and joyful democratic engagements.

Over the past two decades, the scholarly community interested in participatory and deliberative democracy has focused their attention on democratic innovations. Designs such as participatory budgets and citizens assemblies have been conceptualised as the actualisation of democratic ideals in a micro setting, in relative isolation from each other and the wider society (Bussu et al. 2022). In recent years the attention of democracy scholarship turned toward the connectivity between various democratic innovations and raised questions about their political and societal impact (Dean et al. 2019; Jaquet et al. 2023; Parry et al. 2021). The deliberative systems approach (Mansbridge et al. 2012) makes important steps towards understanding connectivity by exploring the transmission between public space, where democratic innovations are located, and empowered space, where governments reside (Dryzek 2009). However, both democratic innovations and deliberative systems are too often conceptualised in relatively static terms. Systems imply clear structures, and democratic innovations tend to apply expert-generated design that intends to guide human interaction. This view pays limited attention to the role of materiality and more-than-human world – including physical space, objects, technology, nonhuman animals, weather phenomena, etc. – in democratic participation.

Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project of inclusion, equality, and freedom. Yet these ideals have been produced within a context structured by colonial power. This article argues that if deliberative democracy is to unfold its full democratic potential, it needs to face its colonial legacies and position a decolonizing ethos at its center. The article proposes a framework consisting of six moves toward decolonizing deliberative democracy—three deconstructive and three reconstructive: 1. acknowledging modernity’s violence; 2. recognizing epistemic injustices within the knowledge production of deliberative democracy; 3. criticizing the colonial drive of deliberative institutions; 4. theorizing from the bottom up by and with Indigenous and marginalized groups; 5. engaging in an open dialogue with the Global South scholarship; 6. focusing on emancipation.

In response to its current crisis, scholars call for the revitalisation of democracy through democratic innovations. While they make ample use of life metaphors describing democracy as a living organism, no comprehensive understanding of ‘life’ has been established within democratic theory. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement articulates the urgency of refocusing on life and its meaning through radical democratic practice. This article employs a grounded theory approach, enriched with participatory methods, to develop a radical democratic concept of life in conversation with BLM. It conceptualises life as the existence of a perspective that constantly transforms through its fundamental interconnectedness. Building on this concept, the article outlines four principles of a living democracy that go beyond the revitalisation discourse. A living democracy (1) safeguards the existence of all humans and nonhumans, (2) nurtures a diversity of perspectives, (3) fosters social and planetary connectivity, and (4) enables self- and collective transformation.

When we participate in political debate or protests, we are judged by how we look, which clothes we wear, by our skin colour, gender and body language. This results in exclusions and limits our freedom of expression. The Politics of Becoming explores radical democratic acts of disidentification to counter this problem. Anonymity in masked protest, graffiti, and online de-bate interrupts our everyday identities. This allows us to live our multiple selves. In the digital age, anonymity becomes an inherent part of everyday communication. Through our smart devices we express our selves differently. As cyborgs, our identities are disrupted and reassembled. We curate self-representations on social media, create avatars, share selfies and choose the skin colour of our emojis. The Politics of Becoming encourages us to engage in a revolution of the self. Democratic pluralism is not only a matter of institutional design but also about how we express our identities. Inner revolutions change our personal realities and plant a seed for democratic futures.

Since its inception, a core aspiration of deliberative democracy has been to enable more and better inclusion within democratic politics. In this article, we argue that deliberative democracy can achieve this aspiration only if it goes beyond verbal forms of communication and acknowledges the crucial role of non-verbal communication in expressing and exchanging arguments. The article develops a multidimensional approach to deliberative democracy by emphasizing the visual, sonic and physical dimensions of communication in public deliberation. We argue that non-verbal modes of communication can contribute to public deliberation when they (1) are used as part of reason-giving processes, (2) enable the inclusion of marginalized actors in public debates and (3) induce reflection and encourage new ways of thinking about the public controversies at hand.

This article develops the concept of cyborg activism as novel configuration of democratic subjectivity in the Information Age by exploring the online collectivity Anonymous as a prototype. By fusing elements of human/machine and organic/digital, the cyborg disrupts modern logics of binary thinking. Cyborg activism emerges as the reconfiguration of equality/hierarchy, reason/emotion and nihilism/idealism. Anonymous demonstrates how through the use of contingent and ephemeral digital personae hierarchies in cyborg activism prove more volatile than in face-to-face settings. Emotions appear as an essential part of a politics of passion, which enables pursuing laughter and joy, expressing anger and experiencing empowerment as part of a reasoned, strategic politics. Anonymous’ political content reconfigures nihilist sentiments, frustration and political disenchantment, on one hand, with idealist world views, on the other. This enables the cohabitation and partial integration of a great diversity of political claims rooted in various ideologies.

Although anonymity is a central feature of liberal democracies—not only in the secret ballot, but also in campaign funding, publishing political texts, masked protests, and graffiti—it has so far not been conceptually grounded in democratic theory. Rather, it is treated as a self-explanatory concept related to privacy. To overcome this omission, this article develops a complex understanding of anonymity in the context of democratic theory. Drawing upon the diverse literature on anonymity in political participation, it explains anonymity as a highly context-dependent identity performance expressing private sentiments in the public sphere. The contradictory character of its core elements—identity negation and identity creation—results in three sets of contradictory freedoms. Anonymity affords (a) inclusion and exclusion, (b) subversion and submission, and (c) honesty and deception. This contradictory character of anonymity's affordances illustrates the ambiguous role of anonymity in democracy.

Current radical democratic politics is characterized by new participatory spaces for citizens’ engagement, which aim at facilitating the democratic ideals of freedom and equality. These spaces are, however, situated in the context of deep societal inequalities. Modes of discrimination are carried over into participatory interaction. The democratic subject is judged by its physically embodied appearance, which replicates external hierarchies and impedes the freedom of self-expression. To tackle this problem, this article seeks to identify ways to increase the freedom of the subject to explore its multiple self. Understanding the self as inherently fugitive, the article investigates participatory, deliberative and agonistic concepts of self-transformation. As all of them appear limited, it introduces a transformative perspective in democratic thought. Enriching the transformative perspective with queer and gender theory, the article generates the concept of a politics of becoming, which, through radical democratic practices of disidentification, advances the freedom of the subject to change.

Radical democratic thinking is becoming intrigued by the material situatedness of its political agents and by the role of nonhuman participants in political interaction. At stake here is the displacement of narrow anthropocentrism that currently guides democratic theory and practice, and its repositioning into what we call ‘the nonhuman condition’. This Critical Exchange explores the nonhuman condition. It asks: What are the implications of decentering the human subject via a new materialist reading of radical democracy? Does this reading dilute political agency? Or should this be seen, on the contrary, as an invitation for new voices and demands to enter into democratic assemblages? How might engagement with the more-than-human disrupt or extend theories of radical democracy? Hans Asenbaum and Amanda Machin discuss the human democratic subject both through radical democratic and new materialist lenses. They suggest that a new materialist decentred subject does not lose agency but further gains political responsibility in radical democracy. Jean-Paul Gagnon highlights the possibility of becoming through loss. In losing our anthropocentric arrogance—our understanding of being other and better than animal—we become more connected and discover our place in human-nonhuman assemblages. Melissa Orlie agrees that something can be gained through renouncing dominant human fantasies and presents a ‘radical democratic naturalism’. By renouncing land violence and acknowledging nature’s subjectivity, we can further nonexploitative radical democratic politics. This is where the notion of ‘tidalectic’ processes introduced by James L. Smith is helpful. Focusing on water and the Indigenous knowledges around rivers, he considers how democracy and community can be reimagined as plural, cyclical and attentive to the nonhuman with which the human is inevitably entangled. Diana Leong offers a different approach. Considering the nonhuman from the perspective of Black Studies demands an awareness to how blackness has long been constituted as non- or partially human.