Conclusion

Although humility is sometimes understood as univalent such that one can never be too hum­ble, this understanding can be more harmful than helpful for understanding its role in democ­racy.

We have outlined several advantages to this approach. Since we have identified that delibera­tive models in particular place a high virtuous burden on citizens, this conception of humility taken alongside the Greek virtue of sophrosyne allows us to more clearly identify how citizens in a deliberative model ought to behave.This approach shifts the focus away from democracy as a consumer choice and toward democracy as a reasoned discourse regarding what is just or unjust. Aside from these normative advantages, our concept of humility also has practical ben- efits.Treating humility as bi-valent gives us space to explore how humility and political efficacy relate from one problematic extreme to the other. Additionally, we can use humility to help us understand innovations in democracy and deliberation.

Our hope is that humility will be a useful lens through which to see how democracy might be improved and its advantages made more attractive. Democracy itself incorporates both the modesty of the average citizen's everyday experiences as well as the hubris of narrow self-inter­est in people's views and demands. Exploring how individuals can balance themselves between diffidence and arrogance may give us insight as to how government might do the same.

Note

1 In the discussion below, we have been informed by, but freely modify the taxonomy and analyses in, Kelly (2012: 44-58).

References

Bachtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R., and Steiner, J., 2010. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities.Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), pp.32—63.

Blum, Christian, and Zuber, Christina Isabel, 2016. Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspec­tives. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), pp.162—182.

Brennan, Jason, 2009. Polluting the polls:When citizens should not vote. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87(4), pp.535-549.

Church, Ian, and Samuelson, Peter, 2016. Intellectual Humility: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Science. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Esterling, K.M., Neblo, M.A., and Lazer, D.M., 2011. Estimating treatment effects in the presence of non­compliance and nonresponse:The generalized endogenous treatment model. Political Analysis, 19(2), pp.205-226.

Goold, S.D., Neblo, M.A., Kim, S.Y.,Vries, R.D., Rowe, G., and Muhlberger, P., 2012.What is good public deliberation? The Hastings Center Report, 42(2), pp.24—26.

Gronlund, Kimmo, Setala, Maija, and Herne, Kaisa, 2010. Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2(1), pp.95—117.

Himmelroos, Staffan, Rapeli, Lauri, and Gronlund, Kimmo, 2017.Talking with like-minded people— Equality and efficacy in enclave deliberation. The Social Science Journal, 54(2), pp.148—158.

Jasanoff, Sheila, 2003. (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), pp.157—162.

Kelly, Jamie Terence, 2012. Framing Democracy: A Behavioral Approach to Democratic Theory. Princeton University Press.

Kober, Stanley, 1997.The spirit of humility. The Cato Journal, 17, p.235.

Lazer, D., Neblo, M., and Esterling, K., 2011. The internet and the madisonian cycle: Possibilities and prospects for consultative representation. In: Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication, eds., Price,V, Chadwick,A., Astrom, J., Gronlund, A., Balla, SJ., Hwang, S.,Wright, S., Gibson, R., Schneeberger,A.I., Monnoyer-Smith, L., and Lubbers, J.S.

Lazer, D.M., Sokhey, A.E., Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., and Kennedy, R., 2015. Expanding the con­versation: Multiplier effects from a deliberative field experiment. Political Communication, 32(4), pp.552—573.

Minozzi,W, Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., and Lazer, D.M., 2015. Field experiment evidence of sub­stantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(13), pp.3937—3942.

Minozzi,William, and David A. Siegel, 2010. A theory of deliberation as interactive reasoning. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Morrell, Michael E., 2005. Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), pp.49—69.

Nabatchi, Tina, 2010. Deliberative democracy and citizenship: In search of the efficacy effect. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), p.8.

Neblo, M.A., Forthcoming. Impassioned democracy:The roles of emotion in deliberative theory. American Political Science Review.

Neblo, M.A., 2004. Motive matters: Liberalism & insincerity. In: Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Neblo, M., 2005. Thinking through democracy: Between the theory and practice of deliberative politics. Acta Politica, 40(2), pp.169—181.

Neblo, M.A., 2006. Change for the Better? Linking the Mechanisms of Deliberative Opinion Change to Normative Theory. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Neblo, M.A., 2007a. Philosophical psychology with political intent. In: The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, ed., Crigler, Ann N. University of Chicago Press, pp.25—47.

Neblo, M.A., 2007b. Family disputes: Diversity in defining and measuring deliberation. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), pp.527—557.

Neblo, M.A., 2011.The virtue of deliberation: Sophrosyne & epistemic democracy. In: APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper, Seattle, WA.

Neblo, Michael A., 2015. Deliberative Democracy Between Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., Kennedy, R.P., Lazer, D.M., and Sokhey,A.E., 2010.Who wants to deliberate— and why? American Political Science Review, 104(3), pp.566—583.

Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., and Lazer, D.M., 2018. Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy (Vol. 555). Cambridge University Press.

Wu, Kevin Chien-Chang, 2011. Deliberative democracy and epistemic humility. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), pp.93—94.