Discursive Exit

Laura Montanaro

American Journal of Political Science, 2019, vol. 63, issue 4, 875-887

Abstract: Some women did not participate in the Women's March, rejecting its claims of unity and solidarity because white women mobilize only in their self‐interest. This is a form of exit with three features: (1) rejecting a political claim; (2) providing reasons to the power wielder and the broader public; and (3) demanding accountability both as sanction and as deliberation, which requires a discussion about the claim—in this case, the meaning of the group and the terms on which it understands itself. This combination of exit, voice, and deliberative accountability might accurately be called “discursive exit.” Discursive exit addresses conceptual and normative limitations of standard accounts of exit, voice, and loyalty, in particular, when exit and voice are imperfect—because exit can be seen as disapproval of an entire cause—and morally problematic—because voice “from within” implies that cause trumps disagreement, leaving people morally complicit in an unwelcome exercise of power.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12463

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:amposc:v:63:y:2019:i:4:p:875-887

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in American Journal of Political Science from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().