This article explores the role of institutional listening in deliberative democracy, focusing particularly on its contribution to the transmission process between the public sphere and formal institutions. We critique existing accounts of transmission for prioritizing voice over listening and for remaining constrained by an ‘aggregative logic’ of the flow of ideas and voices in a democracy. We argue that formal institutions have a crucial role to play in ensuring transmission operates according to a more deliberative logic. To substantiate this argument, we focus on two recent examples of institutional listening in two different democracies: Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the United States’ Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. These cases show that institutional listening can take different forms; it can be purposefully designed or incidental, and it can contribute to the realization of deliberative democracy in various ways. Specifically, institutional listening can help enhance the credibility and visibility of minority groups and perspectives while also empowering these groups to better hold formal political institutions accountable. In these ways, institutional listening helps transmission operate according to a more deliberative logic.

本文探讨了制度性倾听在协商民主中的作用，特别关注它对公共领域和正式制度之间传输过程的贡献。我们批评现有的关于将语音优先于聆听的传输解释，以及仍然受制于民主中思想和声音流动的“聚合逻辑”。我们认为，正式机构在确保传播按照更慎重的逻辑运行方面发挥着至关重要的作用。为了证实这一论点，我们关注两个不同民主国家最近的两个机构倾听的例子：澳大利亚皇家委员会对儿童性虐待的机构反应和美国参议院司法委员会对最高法院提名人布雷特卡瓦诺的确认听证会。这些案例表明，机构倾听可以采取不同的形式；它可以是有目的的设计，也可以是偶然的，它可以以各种方式促进协商民主的实现。具体而言，机构倾听有助于提高少数群体和观点的可信度和知名度，同时也使这些群体能够更好地追究正式的政治机构的责任。通过这些方式，机构倾听有助于传播按照更加审慎的逻辑进行。机构倾听有助于提高少数群体和观点的可信度和知名度，同时也使这些群体能够更好地追究正式的政治机构的责任。通过这些方式，机构倾听有助于传播按照更加审慎的逻辑进行。机构倾听有助于提高少数群体和观点的可信度和知名度，同时也使这些群体能够更好地追究正式的政治机构的责任。通过这些方式，机构倾听有助于传播按照更加审慎的逻辑进行。