When to use demotherapeia

Demotherapeia differs from many traditional forms of democracy. It is not alone in this: deliberative democracy and associative democracy also propose fundamentally different ways of doing things. Deliberative democracy doesn't necessarily have votes or elected representatives, but in these models it supports more traditional forms that do (for example, elected representatives might call a deliberative forum, and then decide whether to act on the results). Associative democracy asks for a much more radical restructure, where power is devolved from a centralised institution to more local associations. So is demotherapeia support more traditional forms, or does it require a radical re-imagining of society? Where and when can it be used?

The answer to the first question is: both. On a local scale, it could work very well as a supplementary or even independent process. On a larger, more societal scale, adopting demotherapeia would require a radical re-organisation of things in society including law and justice.

Hobby groups, focused communities

One place to implement demotherapeia would be hobby groups and focused communities, such as communities that centre around a sport or regular activity. These groups, if they are local and social, might not have any rule-making capacities or aspirations, but could still have socially determined power-structures or face potential conflict or issues between group members. In this environment demotherapeia could act as a type of group therapy that allows participants to highlight issues (for example, a culture of veiled sexism), and lead to a series of personal commitments that allows the participants to call each other out and modify their behaviour. The iterative nature would sustain the progress and reveal any troubles with its implementation.

Broader communities

Local communities often do have some law-making institution, such as a local council, but demotherapeia can still operate in those social spaces defined by the law. For example, participants could hold an assembly where they want to reflect upon an issue or dispute without engaging in law-making practices (though the ultimate ability to do so might distort the process a little). They may especially wish to do so where they think the law-makers would be unlikely, unwilling or unable to address the issue - for example, if the issue is outside their powers, or where they feel they might face voter backlash for instituting a resolution that has the force of law on an issue where that might be considered disproportionate. Or it might be that a law would bind everyone and upset some voters, while the demotherapeian resolution would "bind" (in the sense of personal commitments) just the relevant affected parties.

As an example, businesses in a local community might commit to donating resources to those in need through an increased understanding of the disadvantages some people in the community face, without the council having to bind all businesses to contribute.

Workplaces

Workplaces could voluntarily adopt a demotherapeian model of operating, where employees make personal commitments regarding their work ethic, conditions, treatment of others, and goals. This could be compatible with a top-down approach to directing work in one of two ways. In one manner, the top-down approach could leave space for flexibility that the demotherapeian process could engage with. In another, the top-down approach could provide a structure which the demotherapeian process could reflect upon and deconstruct, providing impetus and focus to discussion.

Society

If applied to society-at-large, the demotherapeian process would require a more radical rethink of social organisation. For example, at a society-level, a "no power" situation would imply no binding laws and no binding processes of justice, moving social organisation into a more anarchist space. Instead of binding laws, social norms and standards would be emergent and pluralistic, though they could refer back to expert administrative organisations voluntarily if they were considered appropriate (and where they were not, they could be deconstructed). Justice would be particularised; a notion I elsewhere call "justice as caring", where understanding the context is essential and focusing on care for the affected parties is fundamental, rather than applying abstract rules in an equal manner.

As a fairly radical proposal, I'll put aside exploring this approach for later, but it is worth noting that even at the more local level, demotherapeia implies a degree of anarchism, a different concept of justice, and particularisation.