Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Epistemology of Democracy

  • Elizabeth Anderson


This paper investigates the epistemic powers of democratic institutions through an assessment of three epistemic models of democracy: the Condorcet Jury Theorem, the Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem, and Dewey's experimentalist model. Dewey's model is superior to the others in its ability to model the epistemic functions of three constitutive features of democracy: the epistemic diversity of participants, the interaction of voting with discussion, and feedback mechanisms such as periodic elections and protests. It views democracy as an institution for pooling widely distributed information about problems and policies of public interest by engaging the participation of epistemically diverse knowers. Democratic norms of free discourse, dissent, feedback, and accountability function to ensure collective, experimentally-based learning from the diverse experiences of different knowers. I illustrate these points with a case study of community forestry groups in South Asia, whose epistemic powers have been hobbled by their suppression of women's participation.



Hide All
Agarwal, B. (2000). Conceptualizing Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24: 283310.
Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development 29(10): 1623–48.
Anderson, E. (2002). Consumer Sovereignty vs. Citizens' Sovereignty: Some Errors in Neoclassical Welfare Economics. In Freiheit, Gleichheit und Autonomie: Wiener Reihe. Themen der Philosophie, ed. Pauer-Studer, H. and Nagl-Docekal, H.. Vienna-Munich: Verlag Oldenbourg.
Cohen, J. (1986). An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics 97(1): 2638.
Condorcet, M. J. A. N. d. C., de, Marquis. (1995). An Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions Rendered by a Plurality of Votes. In Classics of Social Choice, ed. and trans. McLean, I., trans. and Urken, ed. A., 91112. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dewey, J. (1976). Valuation and Experimental Knowledge. In The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899-1924, vol. 13, ed. Boydston, J. A., 328. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1981a). Creative Democracy: The Task before Us. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, vol. 14, Essays, ed. Boydston, J. A., 224–30. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1981b). Freedom and Culture. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, vol. 13, ed. Boydston, J. A., 65188. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1981c). The Public and its Problems. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, vol. 2, ed. Boydston, J. A., 235372. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Estlund, D. (1994). Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem. Theory and Decision 36(2): 131–62.
Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority. In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., 173204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fey, M. (2003). A Note on the Condorcet Jury Theorem with Supermajority Voting Rules. Social Choice and Welfare 20(1): 2732.
Gaus, G. (1997). Does Democracy Reveal the Voice of the People? Four Takes on Rousseau. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75(2): 141–62.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grofman, B., and Feld, S.. (1988). Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective. American Political Science Review 82(2): 567–76.
Hayek, F. A. v. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review 35: 519–30.
Herzog, D. (2000). Externalities and Other Parasites. University of Chicago Law Review 67: 895923.
Hong, L., and Page, S.. (2004). Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 16385–89.
List, C. (2001). Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277306.
Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. Political Theory 15: 338–68.
Page, S. (forthcoming 2006). Thinking Differently: How Our Individual Differences Produce Collective Benefits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, H. (1990). A Reconsideration of Deweyan Democracy. Southern California Law Re-view 63: 1671–97.
Richardson, H. (1997). Democratic Intentions. In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., 349–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. Doubleday.
Westlund, A. (2003). Selflessness and Responsibility for Self: Is Deference Compatible With Autonomy? Philosophical Review 112(4): 483523.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The Epistemology of Democracy

  • Elizabeth Anderson


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.