The article aims to present and critically analyze one of the currents of thought within the framework of deliberative democracy. The main dispute that we identify in the framework of this theory is the dispute between the impartialist and pluralistic approach. The role of reason towards the phenomenon of pluralism is the subject of these discussions. The impartialists base their arguments above all on the idea of public reason, while pluralists deny its value to other values. It can therefore be concluded that this dispute consists in opposing the rationality of pluralism to the pluralism of rationality. In addition to analyzing the arguments of the pluralist approach, we also focus on the criticism of the impartialism that these positions have put forward. The article distinguishes three possible forms of pluralism: rationality of pluralism, plurality of rationality prima facie and plurality of rationality sensu proprio. This allows us to show the relationship between impartialism (rationality of pluralism) and pluralism (plurality of rationalities prima facie) and the plurality of pluralism proposed by the critics of impartiality (plurality of rationalities prima facie) with a specific form of pluralism (plurality of rationality sensu proprio). In addition, in the article we identify the directives which pluralists propose to take place of public reason. The pluralistic approach which we analyze in the text is presented by such authors as: Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib, Chantal Mouffe, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The impartialist tradition should be associated with John Rawles and his interpreters and critics such as Joshua Cohen and Brian Barry.

In the study, the author refers to R. Kwaśnica’s concept of two rationalities and to P. Bourdieu’s constructivist structuralism. She assumes that the teacher’s activity takes place within the limits of two (adaptive and emancipatory) rationalities in a specific “field”, with a particular social, cultural and human capital, and with a developed habitus which determines educational practice. A research report is presented. This is done in the form of a record of the current state and socio-civilizational changes which have influenced teachers working in the southern part of the Polish-Czech borderland. Research results show both the continuity and change of the teacher’s behavior and activity from the perspective of social time and social change. They allow for a closer insight into the structure of pedagogical activities and their effects. The strategy of lon- gitudinal comparisons was applied. Diagnostic polling and the interview were used along with the (repeatable) panel method. The studies were conducted in time spans (1998, 2008, 2016) and they concerned the measurement of the teacher’s perception of the “other” learner in class, self-reflection upon the role applied by the teacher, and the teacher’s competences. The obtained research results allow for discovering the characteristics of the teacher’s habitus, for understanding the mechanisms of its functioning and for the effective design of educational activity.

In this paper I would like to present an interpretation of David Hume’s political theory. Therefore, a method of investigation can be recognized as hermeneutical one. Main threads which I would like to emphasize are: concept of stability, distribution of power, role of an opinion in political dimension and a conservative attitude toward a change. I claim that important lesson for political science can be taken from his theory. Generally speaking, this lesson consists in refusing the so-called political regime fetishism and focusing on the relevant issues of social stability. These issues are strictly determined by the opinions, hence the proper subject-matter of political science is identified with them. As one of the conclusions I propose a thesis that politics is, and ought only to be slave of opinions, what is an allusion to a famous sentence from A Treatise of Human Nature that the reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.