• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

  • The Initiative
    • Programs
      • Deliberation Across the Curriculum
      • Deliberation on Campus
      • Deliberation in the Community
      • Research on Deliberation
    • Motivations
      • Why Deliberative Citizenship?
      • Why Davidson? Why Now?
    • Who’s Involved?
      • DCI Fellows Cohorts
        • 2025-2026 Fellows
        • 2024-2025 Fellows
        • 2023-2024 Fellows
        • 2022-2023 Fellows
        • 2021-2022 Fellows
        • 2020-2021 Fellows
      • DeeP Collaborative Cohorts
        • 2024-2025 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
        • 2023-2024 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
      • Advisory Council
    • History
      • What Sparked the Initiative?
    • Key Deliberative Dispositions
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • Annual Report
  • Get Involved!
    • Participate in a Forum
    • Join a D Team
    • Become a Fellow
    • Take Courses
    • Get Training
    • Come to Guest Lectures
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
      • 250th Anniversary Deliberative Forum Series on American Values
    • Past Events
  • Connections
    • The Deliberative Citizen: The DCI’s Monthly Newsletter
    • Efforts on Campus
    • Efforts in the Community
    • Efforts Elsewhere
    • Readings and Resources
      • DCI-Published Guides
      • DCI Guide to One-on-One Conversations
      • How to Disagree
      • Demonstration of Facilitation Styles
      • Deliberative Pedagogy Mini-Course
    • How We Can Help: DCI’s LET’S DELIBERATE! Partnership Opportunities
    • DCI in the News
  • DCI Blog Posts
    • Recent Blog Posts
    • All Blog Posts

Sandro Chumashvili

Developing Deliberative Empathy in a Totally New Society

March 22, 2021 by Sandro Chumashvili Leave a Comment

close up image of someone's feet walking on a gravel road

By Sandro Chumashvili, DCI Fellow

Today I will be sharing the experience of an international student who is also a deliberation facilitator. Coming from a totally different country, Georgia, with different societal norms and, most importantly – issues, it was essential for me to establish an emotional connection with the struggles that people face here in order to feel sincere empathy and understanding during the deliberations. This step was crucial for my everyday social life, but today I will only focus on achieving empathy for deliberations.

Humans tend to subconsciously prioritize the problems that they face. When done at a group level, this nudges people towards a better collective understanding and unites them around a common issue. After coming to the US, I have heard about many issues that people face here but would never see back home. For example, racism. Georgia is a primarily white country, and the topic of racism never arose due to the general lack of racial  diversity.

Another vast difference is where the issues originate from. I came from the country which has 20% of its territory occupied by Russia and from the country against which Russia has started war most times, also known as Putin’s most hated country. This shows that Georgia’s significant problems emanate from external threats, while the US, having the strongest military in history, is mainly troubled by internal issues. This all forced me to take another look at my opinions that seemed set for me, such as those regarding military budgets. Georgian military budget is miserable considering the external threats, while the US overpays for many services and armaments. So what has been my approach to sympathize with issues I have never experienced myself without losing my own identity?

Diverging from logos to pathos. 

As an economics major, I love analyzing numbers and drawing a conclusion as a result of statistical analysis. Still, I have tried to employ my “emotional intelligence” when it comes to person-to-person interactions and be as compassionate and understanding of personal stories as possible. This has allowed me to become more emotionally open to others’ experiences and develop empathy towards situations that sometimes sounded surreal to me due to my background.

Rejecting assumptions. 

I believe this point is vital in all kinds of relations and deliberations, not only when one is becoming accustomed to a new society. Past experiences shape our present actions and views; therefore, just discussing the latter without taking the former under consideration is problematic and takes away the opportunity to understand one’s companion fully. One should not judge another’s path unless they have walked it in the same shoes. This orientation has not only allowed me to understand where others are coming from but has dramatically sharpened my active listening skill.

Historical understanding. 

Every insightful discussion, and especially every deliberation, needs a deep understanding of the past links that have led to a particular contemporary policy, opinion, or movement. In this case, unlike in my first point, logos and pathos are closely intertwined and cannot be separated. Understanding historical background has been crucial for me in developing empathy since it goes further than emotions and plays an important role cognitively as well. This creates an important synthesis of compassion on both rational and emotional levels.

As an international facilitator, these points have allowed me to widen my worldview and be able not only to bring something new to the table but understand what is already present. I firmly believe that deliberation without empathy is like a clock without ticks – useless. Understanding people from two different societies is essential to the critical task of being compassionate to deliberators with different experiences and backgrounds.

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Fellow Posts

Deliberation vs. Debate: What Kind of Society (and Discourse) Do We Want?

October 15, 2020 by Sandro Chumashvili 1 Comment

two women sitting at a table by a window talking

By Sandro Chumashvili, DCI Fellow

Since the age of thirteen, I have actively participated in competitive debates. I started with “world school style” and then found the most significant success in the “British Parliament Style.” By success, I mean becoming the champion of my country (Georgia) and achieving high results on an international level. After the world championship in 2019, at the age of just 17, I retired from debates. I moved to adjudicating and teaching new generations.

After joining the Davidson College community, I searched for ways to further develop the skills that I gained while debating, but in a less confrontational and understanding manner, and I found the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI). It focuses on deliberation and has the primary goal of depolarizing society, which sounded very appealing. With the other DCI Fellows, I went through the weeks of training and now facilitate political discussions and deliberations. Today I would like to point out some of the main differences between deliberations and debates on the different scales and levels. I will leave it up to you to decide which is better for the growth of an individual and society.

On the personal development level, both deliberations and debates help one to train specific skills. Debates are more focused upon critical thinking in limited time. It encourages you to protect your side at any cost, but the beauty of debates shows through when you do not know which position you will have to support before the preparation starts. For example, you may have to defend a position in the simulation that is totally opposite to the one that you have in real life. I remember that I had to defend communistic measures in the Estonian championship, despite considering myself libertarian; other times, I had to stand on the side of atheism while I identify myself as Christian. These clashes help you dig deep into the other side of an idea, which naturally forces you to think differently from how we would in real life; it internally forces us to question our beliefs and opinions.

Deliberations influence an individual differently. Here, you do not put up a wall between you and your companions, but to the contrary, you are open to changing your mind and accepting others’ opinions. Deliberations substitute the word “protect” in debates with “express,” meaning that you shall express and explain your idea, but at the same time, closely engage with other’s points. This way, the conversation tends to be less self-centered and touches upon the deeper parts of one’s ideas. People seldom totally agree or disagree with each other; therefore, deliberation is a more natural way to interact. It takes away the artificial “reject everything they say” point and nudges the participants toward a more interactive discussion.

Are both of those useful on all levels of society? To answer this question, let’s consider two crucial aspects: the stakes and the goal. If participants’ purpose is to show their dominance over another person, they become resistant to accepting the other person’s opinions, and deliberation is no more productive. The same can be said for when the stakes are high. For example, substituting presidential debates with deliberation would not be useful, since it is not in the candidates’ interests to find their spots of intersection. They always try to show their dominance in the areas they disagree with.

On the other hand, and on a smaller scale, wherever the main goal is to find a solution to a problem, and especially if compromise may be necessary, deliberation is a better solution since it does not disregard anyone’s opinion. The output reflects everyone’s input.

Personally, as time has passed and I have matured, I have moved away from debates. The main reason for this shift is how emotionally demanding they are and how high the stakes are. Debates are a perfect way to shape your opinion through clashes. Still, deliberations are more useful once you are more confident in your values and beliefs and are open to being challenged. What is more helpful depends on your values, what kind of society you want to see in the future, and how you perceive others’ ideas. Still, we shall remember that like everywhere, the answer is never black or white; both deliberation and debate are helpful on different scales and in different situations.

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Fellow Posts Tagged With: debate, deliberation, discourse

Footer

Blog Post Categories

  • Announcements
  • Blog Posts
  • DCI Posts
  • Events
  • Faculty Posts
  • Fellow Posts
Image of a compass superimposed by the text "Deliberative Citizenship Initiative" and "Davidson College." Clicking on this image leads to the Initiative page.

Recent DCI Blog Posts

  • We Tried to Fix Jubilee’s “Middle Ground” – Here’s How It Went
  • A Case for Deliberation in the Natural Sciences
  • Welcoming New Staff to the DCI and DCN
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn



Copyright © 2026 · Infinity Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in