Jane Mansbridge’s (1999) “contingent ‘yes’” amplified a chorus of voices discussing the substantive and symbolic functions of historically marginalized groups’ presence in political office. In her essay, Mansbridge points to contexts of mistrust and uncrystallized interests as domains where presence enhances “adequate communication” and “innovative thinking” for these social groups (628). In this and many other accounts, the linchpin between descriptive and substantive representation for these functions is group members’ shared experiences, alternatively framed as the perspectives informed by those experiences. Shared experiences cannot and do not produce identical effects (they are filtered through many lenses), but they are widely understood to inform and indeed often to authenticate political representation.

中文翻译：

---

为什么在描述性表征中对共享经验进行理论化和测量是“值得制造的一团糟”

简·曼斯布里奇 (Jane Mansbridge) (1999) 的“偶然的‘是’”扩大了讨论历史上被边缘化的群体在政治职位上的实质性和象征性功能的声音。在她的文章中，Mansbridge 指出不信任和未明确利益的背景是存在增强这些社会群体的“充分沟通”和“创新思维”的领域 (628)。在这个和许多其他的叙述中，这些功能的描述性和实质性表达之间的关键是群体成员的共同经历，或者被构筑为由这些经历告知的观点。共享经验不能也不会产生相同的效果（它们通过许多镜头过滤），但它们被广泛理解为提供信息，而且实际上经常用于验证政治代表。