Blog Posts

Diverging and Converging: The Art of Deliberative Balance

October 22, 2020 by John Leiner Leave a Comment

By John Leiner, DCI Fellow

Perhaps it comes as a surprise that a philosophical work written in 350 B.C.E. provides one of the most useful practical frameworks for deliberative democracy. In any case, the crux of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that balance is virtue can help guide polarized groups—no matter the setting—in making better participatory decisions.

Aristotle argues in his Classical-era treatise that the most practical action each human should take is that which is the most virtuous, thereby leading to one’s happiness and justice. Aristotle explains that these acts lie between acts driven by vice. In other words, an act of virtue is neither excessive nor deficient in its inherent value. To this point, an act of courage strikes a balance between rashness (excessive) and cowardice (deficient) in the same way that the ideal participatory decision strikes a balance between a decision driven by false consensus (excessive) and a total lack of consensus (deficient).

Dr. Carcasson made several references to Aristotle’s Ethics throughout his workshops last week, in which he provided faculty, staff and students valuable strategies for ‘striking the right balance’ through deliberation. In his first workshop on “Deliberative Pedagogy and Program Design” for faculty and staff, Dr. Carcasson introduced Sam Kaner’s model for deliberative decision making. The key to Kaner’s model, Dr. Carcasson emphasized, is that balance is virtue. By identifying pure convergent thinking (i.e. groupthink) and pure divergent thinking (i.e. “talking past each other”) as more or less ‘vices’ in the Aristotelean sense, Dr. Carcasson stressed that educators should embrace both students’ convergent and divergent thinking in classroom discussions.

Consensus, he pointed out, is not the balance sought by deliberation. Instead, mutual understanding and clarification of both areas of agreement and disagreement is the goal. Kaner’s model suggests that by allowing student deliberators to first bring out tensions towards ideas by encouraging divergent thinking and then identifying areas of common ground through a process of convergent thinking, educators can strike the right deliberative balance between perspectives. For Kaner and Carcasson, this balance should be one of the key aspirations of any deliberative process.

Beyond pedagogy, finding balance in deliberation is equally important for facilitators and their efforts to manage the polarization within a group. ‘Passionate impartiality’ is the modus operandi for us as DCI facilitators. Dr. Carcasson stressed passionate impartiality’s importance in facilitating from the standpoint of striking a balance between various tensions, such as impartiality towards ideas, honoring equality and inclusivity towards people and perspectives, and respecting sound data and reasoning. Facilitators should, above all, “model and encourage democratic attitudes and skills” while helping participants “identify the values and interests that motivate their perspectives.”

When facilitators strike a balance between their own tensions, they can assist deliberators in fostering a balanced deliberation. Even outside of deliberation, when competing interests cause groups of people to become polarized in their approaches towards a shared problem, balance is not an elusive concept. By recognizing inherent democratic tensions and placing them on a spectrum—how much we value something versus how much someone else does—we can more easily locate where these tensions balance each other out.

Such polarity mapping/management allows us first to think about and express how we ourselves prioritize different values, and then also to see how others respond to these tradeoffs. Such a process highlights the underlying tradeoffs that are present in an issue and can help deliberators better understand the underlying drivers of their disagreements. Dr. Carcasson says that this balance between values is both a short- and long-term goal and is the essence of deliberation. Like justice in Nicomachean Ethics, this deliberative balance is hard to locate precisely. Yet, let this not dissuade us from seeking it.

Watch Dr. Carcasson’s Deliberation-in-Action workshops and keynote address here.

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

October 15, 2020 by Sandro Chumashvili 1 Comment

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.

The Quality of Our Public Discourse: A Closer Look at the Shortcomings of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

October 8, 2020 by Kyle Broxton Leave a Comment

By Kyle Broxton, DCI Fellow

A little over one week ago, more than seventy-million people witnessed what is commonly referred to as the first “debate” of the 2020 United States presidential election. Throughout the event, the two participants used every opportunity to interrupt, criticize, and crosstalk with each other as well as the moderator. By one count, President Donald Trump interrupted the moderator or his opponent 71 times in 90 minutes; former Vice President Joe Biden did so 22 times. In the days following the event, near-universal criticism centered around the overall failure of the participants to respect each other, each other’s viewpoints, and the rules of the “debate.” But why are we in general agreement that this “debate” was unproductive? Is there something fundamental about this form of discourse that explains where the two presidential candidates fall short of what should have been expected?

It is important to know that many forms of discourse—debates included—are rule-based. Rules are especially important for adversarial forms of discourse as they serve to mitigate the inclination for participants to make rapid, emotionally charged remarks as opposed to articulate, objective arguments. An example of this kind of rule is one mandating that interruptions be kept at a minimum. As this did not occur on September 29th, it follows that the quality of the “debate,” insofar as it involved free and open participation, was poor.

Discourse ethics identifies respect as another indicator of a quality discourse. Respect can be divided into two distinct indicators, respect toward the participants as well as the arguments employed by the participants. Despite the significant difference in political opinions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the existing norms of presidential debates suggest that they should highlight these differences while maintaining respect for one another and the arguments that each uses. To show respect for one’s fellow debater does not take the form of many of the remarks the candidates made, such as “there’s nothing smart about you,” or “will you shut up, man?” And to respect the arguments the other has made—though admittedly difficult in the context of the event—is nonetheless possible. For example, one debater could recognize the motivations behind the other’s arguments, while still disagreeing with their construction or importance. When participants show such mutual respect, debates can be more ethical and productive.

Recognizing the importance of following the rules of a debate makes it obvious why the exchange between the two candidates was found to be as problematic as it was. A failure to adhere to the rules results in these indicators of a quality discourse being substituted with frequent interruptions, personal attacks, and antagonism towards each other’s views.

Though the Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP) specified that “the moderator [would] regulate the conversation so that thoughtful and substantive exchanges would occur,” the moderator himself, Chris Wallace of Fox News, admitted he had not been prepared for Trump’s behavior. Ultimately, the quality of the debate left the CDP open to adding more structure “to ensure a more orderly discussion.”

This is to be expected should the goal of these presidential debates be to identify the candidate with the stronger arguments, a goal that cannot be fulfilled if the candidates cannot speak without being interrupted. Furthermore, respect toward the opponent’s argument can only be met if the speaker acknowledges the argument to begin with. Therefore, calls for additional structure in future presidential debates—in the form of muting mics upon interruption or requiring that candidates respond directly and respectfully to the preceding arguments of their opponent—are made in the interest of productive and quality discourse.

Debate and Deliberation: Commonalities and Contrasts Through the Lens of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

October 1, 2020 by Cadie McNaboe Leave a Comment

By Cadie McNaboe, DCI Fellow

On September 29^th, countless Americans tuned in to watch the first presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Former Vice President Joe Biden. For those who persevered through the antagonistic comments and arguments with the moderator, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, it was clear that it was impossible to call the back and forth exchange a deliberation, and unlikely to term it a debate. NBC anchor Lester Holt, right after the debate had closed said, “If hearing that this debate is over was music to your ears, you may not be alone … I’m at a bit of a loss for words here to describe what we’ve just witnessed.” I stand in agreement with him.

While this is only my third round of presidential debates (that I remember-it’s distinctly possible my parents set me in front of the TV to watch the debates as a child), my years of competing in debate taught me about the rigidity and rules of debating, none of which were present in this debate. The DCI defines debate as structured discourse that is oriented towards highlighting differences and exposing weaknesses; with previous presidential debates, it also has been utilized to signify an alignment towards policy and an opportunity for a “winner” to emerge through their use of political prose and powerful rhetoric. This debate, with its insults, interruptions, and cross-talk intended only to derail the moderator’s questioning, should be considered more of a reality-TV scene than anything else.

Deliberation, on the other hand, has something else to offer the American public. Based on cooperation rather than competition, deliberation seeks to build collective and individual understanding, and works to bridge the divides across the political spectrum so frequently apparent at the national level. Going beyond the constraints of debate’s binary pro-con style, deliberation calls for good-faith arguments, ones that seeks to understand our commonalities rather than our differences.

Through deliberation, with its use of an active facilitator, connections can be woven, and viewpoints can be shared through the strategic use of stories, statistics, productive cross-talk and thoughtful consideration of new perspectives beyond our own. This non-adversarial approach builds on the unique perspectives each deliberator holds, and their inherent power to share their perspective with others.

Deliberation also stands to provide an opportunity to enable action after its closing. In a debate, participants would shake hands (pre-COVID), get the judge’s feedback and “scoresheets” and then proceed to move to the next topic of concern. Instead of positing a temporary topic of concern, deliberation allows and encourages voluntary action as a relevant part of the deliberative process. Communication around these contentious issues is essential but does little without action tied to it.

This is why after each D-Team meeting or deliberative forum, the DCI sends out Beyond the Deliberation, a compilation of tangible action pathways for participants to consider if they feel inspired to pursue any of them. These pathways, with ways to get informed, get connected, and get involved, contribute to the autonomy of each deliberator, who can individually and collectively continue the work our democracy requires. After watching the first presidential debate, it’s easy to feel unsure about the state of our country, but if instead of a reason to forfeit anything related to politics, we must use that debate as a call for cooperation as a collective response. If we do that, then we are empowered and also well positioned to begin the lifelong work of deliberation and action – for the benefit of ourselves and our democracy.

A Democracy Worth Pursuing

September 24, 2020 by Tyler McLaren Leave a Comment

By Tyler McLaren, DCI Fellow

John Locke, a founding philosopher of liberalism, offered that, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, [cannot] be […] subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” Why is it then, that in our American society, which is built upon liberalism and where this ideology is so highly regarded, so many citizens have abandoned their right to make their voices heard, to vote and to engage in civil discourse, when the result is a complete forfeiture of power to a government that does not serve their interests? Why would anyone give up this power and self-agency?

One may advance the common belief that our elected officials in Washington have not listened to the American people for decades, and that political engagement is a lost cause given the government’s complexity and polarization. Simply put, it is not the American people who have given up on democracy—the government has.

Dr. Daniel Layman, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Davidson College, offers that there is a favorable alternative to current practice both in Monday’s “Deliberation Nation – Why Deliberative Democracy is our Best Option” lecture and in his peer reviewed article, Robust Deliberative Democracy.

Layman contends that if we choose to deliberate with our fellow citizens on policy issues, instead of participating in the bargaining and bickering which has become the norm, we all have a say in politics, we all exercise our right to be equal and independent, and we are all truly free. Democracy is a team effort, and if we are to save it from apathy, disengagement, marginalization, and polarization, no players can be on the sidelines.

Skeptical? I was too before Layman moved from a utopian depiction of deliberative democracy to expose us to two core problems with deliberative democracy, which he then refuted— restoring faith in his argument, and by extension, the likelihood that we could pull this off.

First, there is a knowledge problem. If the average citizen does not know the name of their senator, what makes us think they have the knowledge to debate about contentious issues in our country? Deliberative democracy, however, does not require excessive knowledge —it is based on moral deliberation. Morals are plentiful and diverse in the American polis. We should therefore be able to define the moral parameters within which acceptable policy can be made.

Second, there is the incentive problem. Many Americans have little incentive to take politics seriously and are disinclined to devote time, energy, and resources to a political process that yields little in their favor. Yet deliberative democracy does not ask citizens to abandon their own self-interest in favor of others. Instead, it asks our citizens to conceptualize their self-interest and their ability to voice their needs as centrally dependent on their freedom from arbitrary government or others’ personal wills. It makes little logical sense, then, why anyone would subject themself to such unfreedom, under this assumption.

With a strong case as to why deliberative democracy is not just manageable, but worth managing, we must begin thinking about how we can make it possible for our citizens to begin “sharing reasons” with one another and accepting others’ offerings to arrive at some common ground first, and then the most rationally supported policy becomes possible. Efforts promoting deliberation are a good start, but are often limited to those fortunate enough to receive a college education. If deliberative democracy is to work, everyone must be invited to the table. Deliberative forums must be accessible, inviting, and come at no cost to the participants. Deliberation cannot privilege those who fit the mold of what politics is “supposed” to look like; everyone must have the ability to express their reason in their own way. For this reason, I’m excited about the DCI’s current efforts and future plans to partner with local organizations to host deliberation opportunities for all members of our community, regardless of their background.

Although there is much work to be done, I have faith in the American people’s ability to find common ground not because they have to, but because it is important to their freedom.