This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:  "Anticipatory exclusion" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2007) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2023) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Anticipatory exclusion refers to a citizen's decision not to attend a discussion due to the anticipation of being excluded. The citizen would never take part in a discussion because they believe that their views and perspectives wouldn't be given equal time or consideration, when compared to dominant views. In other words, the (often realistic) fear of being excluded, discounted, or dismissed causes a person to decline an opportunity to attend a public event. Calling this "exclusion" implies that the individual's personal decision not to participate actually reflects a larger historical pattern of active exclusion toward similar individuals.

Causes

Anticipatory exclusion is often caused by internal exclusion, which is the way certain dominant ideas and social perspectives can control a discussion even when participants have diverse perspectives (Fung 2004, p. 49). In contrast, external exclusion refers to the fact that minority viewpoints are rarely heard due to structural inequalities in a community (Fung, 2004).

Background

It is generally associated with Dahl's criteria for a democratic process, inclusion and effective participation, which many political theorists consider essential for a participatory or deliberative democracy (Dahl, 1989). Many democratic theorists attempt to solve the challenge of anticipatory and other types of exclusion through formal equalization mechanisms, including structural and economic reforms that would guarantee all citizens have adequate time, education, and resources to deliberate (Sanders 1997, p. 7). But even when these inequalities are adjusted for Sanders argues that deliberative institutions might cater to and perpetuate inequalities against historically disenfranchised groups (e.g., women, minorities) (see also, Schattan, Coelho, Pozzoni, Montoya 2005).

See also

• Deliberative democracy
• Simple majority

References

• Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven Yale University Press.
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.
• Fung, A. (2004). Deliberation's Darker Side: Six Questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge. National Civic Review, 47–54.
• Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). Participation and Public Policies in Brazil. The deliberative democracy handbook strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 174–184). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This article about a political term is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

This sociology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e