Minnesota Law Review

Identity Scripts & Democratic Deliberation

This Article contributes to the literature on negotiation of identity scripts. For an example of such negotiation, consider the prominent case of Barack Obama. Commentators have noted that Americans typically perceive President Obama as a black man and ascribe him corresponding scripts—that is to say, socially constructed expectations—for “acting black.” Commentators also believe President Obama has negotiated these scripts to attain and maintain power. The negotiation process entails alternating between performance and rejection of scripted black identity.

Existing literature explores the harmful effects of ascribed identity scripts and prescribes remedies accordingly. While this scholarship generally focuses on the harms suffered by individuals, this Article takes a different tack, illuminating harms at a systemic level—harms to deliberative democracy. This Article posits that ascribed identity scripts undermine democratic deliberation in at least three regards. First, they create barriers to entry, limiting the scope of participants in democratic deliberation. For example, only African Americans who associate and disassociate with black identity scripts in very particular ways can achieve standing on the political stage. By unduly limiting the scope of individuals who successfully mount the political stage, identity scripts undermine the collective ideal of democratic governance. Second, script negotiations distort the deliberative conversations that ensue among political actors because script negotiations often involve self-censorship. Third, identity scripts distort the way communications are received during deliberation. This Article elaborates on these three dynamics and explores how equal protection jurisprudence can ameliorate them.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days