Inclusivity and the (un)civil paradox : critiquing and needing civility in the public sphere

Scholars have turned toward Deliberative Democracy in recent decades in part because of its potential for including more voices in decision making processes that affect an increasingly diverse polity. Inherent in Deliberative Democracy’s models, though, are what can be understood as prescriptions of certain types of civility, as consensus is posited as only happening under particular circumstances. Valuing radical inclusion, this study investigates historical negative effects of civility policing before exploring a more agonistic approach’s potential for the inclusion of all voices, especially those previously marginalized.