Citizenship and political judgment: between discourse ethics and phronesis

Abstract

Political judgment is notoriously hard to theorize. In the recent debates surrounding Jurgen Habermas's discourse ethics, one encounters classic disagreements around the nature, operation, & validity of such judgments. Here, Habermas's account of political judgment is evaluated, & the problems raised by his critics are explored. Also considered is the contentious role played by universals within his account. What emerges is a reformulated theory of judgment based on the thin universalism of fair deliberation, & a description of a subset of judgments, termed "democratic judgments," oriented toward the preservation of democracy.