INSPIRE: Intersectional Spaces of Participation: Inclusive, Resilient, Embedded

一方面，参与性和协商民主进程因其通过深化公众参与来解决政治不信任和两极分化的潜力而受到称赞。另一方面，它们经常被指责为根深蒂固的问题的表面解决方案，这些问题继续将已经被剥夺权力的群体排除在外(沿着社会经济、性别、种族、身体和精神能力线)。INSPIRE旨在通过促进跨部门平等来应对这些指控和失败，参与性空间是：包容各方并从边缘化群体的需求和资产开始；对政府的变化具有复原力，并在现有基层工作的基础上发展，以支持社区复原力；嵌入更广泛的公共领域并与决策机构建立富有成效的关系(Bussu等人2022A；埃斯科瓦尔2022)。我们采用了三个关键思想：参与的政治经济学、共同设计和集合理论。我们强调影响人们参与能力的社会经济因素，或参与的政治经济学。我们使用一系列基于艺术、数字和创意的方法与参与者共同设计包容性的参与性空间，这些空间超越了以谈话为中心的深思熟虑，这可能会加剧现有的不平等。为了分析和促进PDD内部的跨部门平等，我们需要克服该领域方法论方法有时表现出的线性和过于简单化的问题，这些方法往往会忽视参与的动态性、复杂性和杂乱性。集合的概念帮助我们了解不同的参与性做法如何在地方、国家和跨国各级共存、相互作用和变化。使用这些理论和分析工具，我们可以更清楚地追踪加剧不平等的进程和权力动态，我们可以通过其多种形式和做法加强民主和包容性参与。

Participatory and deliberative democracy (PDD) processes have on the one hand been celebrated for their potential in addressing political distrust and polarisation by deepening public engagement. On the other hand, they are often accused of being cosmetic solutions to deep-seated problems that continue to exclude already disempowered groups (along socioeconomic, gender, racial, physical and mental ability lines). INSPIRE aims to tackle these accusations and failures by fostering intersectional equality, through participatory spaces that are: inclusive and start from the needs and assets of marginalised groups; resilient to changes in government and developing upon existing grassroots work to support community resilience; and embedded within the wider public sphere and in productive relationships with policymaking institutions (Bussu et al 2022a; Escobar 2022). We employ three key ideas: the political economy of participation, co-design, and assemblage theory. We place emphasis on socioeconomic factors that affect people’s capabilities to participate, or the political economy of participation. We use a range of arts-based, digital and creative methods to co-design with participants inclusive participatory spaces that move beyond just talk-centric deliberation, which can exacerbate existing inequalities. To analyse and foster intersectional equality within PDD we need to overcome the linearity and oversimplification that sometimes characterise methodological approaches in the field, which tend to overlook the dynamism, complexity, and messiness of participation. The concept of assemblage helps us look at how different participatory practices coexist, interact and change across local, national and transnational levels. Using these theoretical and analytical tools we can trace more clearly processes and power dynamics that exacerbate inequalities, and we can strengthen democratic and inclusive participation through its many forms and practices.