By Emre Guvenilir ’25
In my view, deliberation is a tool that can help facilitate healthy conversation. When done correctly, it can bring together those who hold opposing views to find common values or goals, which can in turn orient policy solutions in less extreme directions. This is critical in a free democracy, where everyone is given a voice and empowered to advocate for different policy solutions and points of view in a respectful manner. A good deliberation is a peaceful, reasonable discussion that involves individuals with different perspectives, a clear shift from what is often portrayed on national television between politicians and the most outspoken advocates.
It is important to recognize that political discourse comes in many forms, including protest and other forms of citizen activism. A few weeks ago, the DCI Fellows had an opportunity to read a paper titled “Deliberation and Non-Deliberative Communication” by Edana Beauvais at Harvard University. The article develops a typology of communication that distinguishes between communication that is collectively-oriented and communication that is reason-giving. This raises the question concerning how deliberative communication fits into the wider political discourse, and if viewed within the context of a deliberative framework, whether more disruptive political communication can be considered part of a healthy deliberative democracy.
To address the first question, we must identify who engages and does not engage in political communication. In my view, political engagement in rallies, protests, and other events typically involves the most partisan among us. Then, there are those who may be loosely engaged with politics by reading and watching news stories, or through social media. Finally, there are those who are turned off from the nature of political discourse, so do not engage. However, it is important to recognize that all these people still have values that are important to them.
The hardest group to engage are those disconnected from politics. However, we can make deliberation more attractive to this group if it is focused through a lens of values, rather than concrete political issues. This means focusing on larger scale topics such as family, individualism, equality, and other core values. Those who are already engaged in partisan politics might be inclined to participate in a deliberation. However, when they engage for the first time with those who hold directly opposing views, even for this group, deliberation should also focus on values rather than specific issues. This will help everyone find common ground or at least better understand how they are emphasizing different values.
To answer the second question of how more disruptive political communication fits in to our broader political discourse, it is important to recognize that acts like protests aim to publicize a particular perspective and influence government and public opinion. Generally speaking, the aim of protesting is not to understand the other side. In my view, this differs from the goal of deliberation, and therefore deliberative theorists do not need to classify those forms of political communication as forms of deliberation.
However, deliberation can fail. To me, deliberation fails if deliberators fail to uphold the conversation agreements. This could happen for any number of reasons; for example, some involved in the deliberation feel they cannot express their thoughts because of a power imbalance that exists, deliberators fail to respect each others’ values, or any number of reasons. If deliberation fails, deliberative theorists should recognize that more disruptive acts can give a platform for stakeholders to come back to the table. As Edana Beauvais explains, “disruptive communication…is an effective tool for calling people to arms, to capture their interest, focus their energies, draw them tightly together.”
If deliberative communication fails partly because of a perceived power imbalance, protest can aid in bringing a voice to those who feel they do not have one and get the attention of those who are perceived to hold power. When individuals turn to disruptive forms of political communication, deliberation may appear to be the antithesis of what is needed. Protesters do not usually demand compromise; they demand the entirety of what they are fighting for. This leaves those in power resistant to any change since it seems to be an “all or nothing” deal. When that point is reached, I believe deliberation is a tool that should be used to better understand the differences of the parties involved and find common ground where possible.
So, to bring it back to the bigger question: where does deliberation fit into the larger political discourse? As Edana Beauvais concludes, different types of communication play different roles in public discourse. It is important for deliberative theorists to understand that deliberation has its limits, and only works when individuals are willing to recognize that others may be focusing on different values than they are. If individuals are willing to take this step and acknowledge that their own views may be wrong (or at least limited), deliberation can indeed be used as a tool that helps us move beyond competing slogans and sound bites, and empower us to create a more inclusive, functional, and dynamic democracy.
[BG1]Can you say more about what you mean here?