|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 1,
123-149 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/030631201031001007
What is the Problem with Experts?
Stephen Turner
Department of Philosophy, FAO 226, University of South Florida, 4202 Fowler Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33620-5550, USA; fax: +1 813 974 5914; turner{at}chuma.cas.usf.edu
The phenomenon of expertise produces two problems for liberal democratic theory: the first is whether it creates inequalities that undermine citizen rule or make it a sham; the second is whether the state can preserve its neutrality in liberal `government by discussion' while subsidizing, depending on, and giving special status to, the opinions of experts and scientists. A standard Foucauldian critique suggests that neutrality is impossible, expert power and state power are inseparable, and that expert power is the source of the oppressive, inegalitarian effects of present regimes. Habermas argues that expert cultures make democratic discussion impossible. Analogous problems arise with `cognitive authority', understood in Mertonian terms. Cognitive authority, as Merton sees it, allows us to ask about the democratic legitimacy of this authority, which appears to solve the problem (or part of the problem) because it returns ultimate `authority' to the people, who reject or accept the experts' claims. And many claims to expertise in fact do fail to gain acceptance. Through an examination of the type of expert that appears to evade the demands of legitimation, it is shown that expertise and liberal democracy can in principle co-exist, contrary to the claims of the critics.
Key Words: bureaucracy • constructionism • democracy • discretion • expertise • liberalism • science
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. S. Carolan
Democratizing Knowledge: Sustainable and Conventional Agricultural Field Days as Divergent Democratic Forms
Science Technology Human Values,
July 1, 2008;
33(4):
508 - 528.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Grenier and M. Kehrhahn
Toward an Integrated Model of Expertise Redevelopment and its Implications for HRD
Human Resource Development Review,
June 1, 2008;
7(2):
198 - 217.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Timmermans
Professions and Their Work: Do Market Shelters Protect Professional Interests?
Work and Occupations,
May 1, 2008;
35(2):
164 - 188.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Blok, M. Jensen, and P. Kaltoft
Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use
Public Understanding of Science,
April 1, 2008;
17(2):
189 - 209.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Durant
Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public actor
Public Understanding of Science,
January 1, 2008;
17(1):
5 - 20.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Evans and A. Plows
Listening Without Prejudice?: Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen
Social Studies of Science,
December 1, 2007;
37(6):
827 - 853.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Webster
Crossing Boundaries Social Science in the Policy Room
Science Technology Human Values,
July 1, 2007;
32(4):
458 - 478.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kerr, S. Cunningham-Burley, and R. Tutton
Shifting Subject Positions: Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue
Social Studies of Science,
June 1, 2007;
37(3):
385 - 411.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Eisenhart
The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert
Written Communication,
April 1, 2006;
23(2):
150 - 172.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Miah
Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?
Public Understanding of Science,
October 1, 2005;
14(4):
409 - 421.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lahsen
Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations
Science Technology Human Values,
January 1, 2005;
30(1):
137 - 169.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
