Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - How to Deliberate with (and against) Deniers

  • André Bächtiger, Universität Stuttgart, John S. Dryzek, University of Canberra
  • Book:
    Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times
    Published online:
    28 March 2024
    Print publication:
    04 April 2024, pp 132-146

  • Summary

    Denial means rejecting the best knowledge we have about the state of the world. In its extreme (but not rare) manifestations, denial means that no amount of evidence or argument can change that rejection. The main forms of denial dealt with here concern climate change, Holocaust, election results, and pandemic. Chapter 6 examines the sources of denial in both the psychology of identity and in the political economy, which involves powerful interests such as fossil fuel corporations organizing denial, before moving on to the range of communicative responses to denial. The discussion here begins with the more obvious (and likely ineffective) responses of presenting the facts and promoting objectivity. More promising deliberative approaches involve communication and rhetoric that might reach denial via discursive bridges, and sometimes even draw deniers into deliberative interactions. If that fails, denial might be diverted or kept out of places in deliberative systems where it can do the most damage.