TY - JOUR
T1 - Just deliberation: Can communicative rationality support socially just environmental conservation in rural Africa?
AU - Martin, Adrian
AU - Rutagarama, E.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - This article evaluates the use of deliberative methods for filling the democratic deficit arising from the
shift to management through partnerships in conservation in developing countries. We ask whether
deliberative approaches are feasible in a rural African context and the extent to which they can form
a basis for socially just environmental decision making. In answering these questions we focus on two
main concerns: the possibility of achieving satisfactory representation and the possibility of constructing
counter-factual spaces of deliberation in which identity-based bias is suspended in favour of reasoned
argument. Our survey data suggests that participants are themselves satisfied that representation is fair,
and that the consensus attained at the end of deliberative events is not the result of domination of more
powerful interests. Nevertheless, our more qualitative observations of individuals involved in deliberative
events provide stronger cause for caution. It is not possible to leave power and prejudice out of
deliberative processes, though well managed spaces of deliberation can temporarily mitigate these and
in doing so provide some empowerment to normally marginalised participants.
AB - This article evaluates the use of deliberative methods for filling the democratic deficit arising from the
shift to management through partnerships in conservation in developing countries. We ask whether
deliberative approaches are feasible in a rural African context and the extent to which they can form
a basis for socially just environmental decision making. In answering these questions we focus on two
main concerns: the possibility of achieving satisfactory representation and the possibility of constructing
counter-factual spaces of deliberation in which identity-based bias is suspended in favour of reasoned
argument. Our survey data suggests that participants are themselves satisfied that representation is fair,
and that the consensus attained at the end of deliberative events is not the result of domination of more
powerful interests. Nevertheless, our more qualitative observations of individuals involved in deliberative
events provide stronger cause for caution. It is not possible to leave power and prejudice out of
deliberative processes, though well managed spaces of deliberation can temporarily mitigate these and
in doing so provide some empowerment to normally marginalised participants.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.02.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.02.001
M3 - Article
VL - 28
SP - 189
EP - 198
JO - Journal of Rural Studies
JF - Journal of Rural Studies
SN - 0743-0167
IS - 3
ER -