Blog Posts

One Team

September 10, 2020 by Graham Bullock

One day my high school basketball coach gave our team an unusual exercise. He split us into two groups and put us into two separate rooms. He told us our objective was to get the most possible points for our team, and gave us a sheet of paper with a bunch of instructions on it. I don’t remember all of the details, but they were roughly as follows:

In a series of rounds, each team was to choose either “Red” or “Blue;” if both groups chose Red, both would earn 3 points, if both groups chose Blue, both would lose 3 points. But if one group chose blue while the other group chose red, the group that chose blue would earn 6 points and the group that chose red would lose 6 points. In the first few rounds, the groups were not allowed to communicate with one another; in later rounds, representatives from each group were given short opportunities to discuss their plans with each other.

So which would you choose? Which did we? I remember lots of debate in my group – could we trust the others to choose Red so that we would both earn points? Or would they “backstab” us and choose Blue, causing us to lose big while they would win big?

I have since recognized this game as a classic prisoner’s dilemma, in which detectives try to play prisoners off of each other as they interrogate them in separate rooms. It is used as a metaphor for the collective action challenges facing any two groups negotiating with each other. It explains, for example, why it is so hard for Democrats and Republicans to reach a deal on social security or healthcare reform – both fear that the other side will attack them to score political points if they try to offer a reasonable compromise.

But what was most memorable about playing this game with my basketball team was what our coach said at the end of it. After we went through several rounds of each group experimenting with picking Red, getting burned, and then both consistently picking Blue, we counted up our points and one group celebrated for having edged out the other. But Coach simply said something to the effect of, “I never said you were supposed to win points for just half your team.” And then he made us run a LOT.

This for me is an even better metaphor for our current politics. We think the objective is for our party – our “team” – to win as many elections and policy debates as possible. This paradigm has been called “teamsmanship,” or “tribalism,” or “hyper-partisanship;” but whatever the name, it misses what should be the real point of politics. It should not be about one side winning or losing, it should be about both sides – all sides – winning at least a little bit. Our coach’s point was that it was the cumulative score of the two groups that mattered, not how much one group beat the other group by. And so it is with effective governance – it should take into account the interests and concerns of all the people, not just those who voted for the party in power. We are all, ultimately, on one team.

This logic is embedded in the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative’s new Deliberative “D” Teams Program. These teams are made up of 5-10 people with diverse perspectives and backgrounds who have committed to meet biweekly to discuss important issues and get to know people outside their normal social, academic and professional circles. At this time of intense feelings, rapid change, and hyper-polarization, D Teams create spaces for people to come together to explore how and why their perspectives are both similar and different – and to begin building common solutions to our collective challenges.

We call them “Teams” to emphasize that even though participants may have significant differences of opinion, they are all on the same team, working together to understand and map the terrain of those differences, uncover the experiences and assumptions that they are based on, and work towards new possibilities that can reconcile and transcend those differences.

To experience this process of exploration and discovery, we encourage you to sign up for a D Team today. In just three hours a month, these teams will enable you to practice your deliberative citizenship skills of listening actively, expressing yourself authentically, and engaging with others deeply and respectfully. They are open to all Davidson faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community members and provide a great way to connect with others either online or in a socially distanced in-person format.

Sign-ups are available through a form on the DCI’s WildcatSync page at the beginning of every semester. Individuals can state their preference for a variety of D Team options, including in-person vs. virtual formats. D Teams will be scheduled at a variety of times – e.g. weekday mornings over breakfast, during the lunch hour, in the evenings, Saturday mid-morning, Sunday afternoon – to accommodate everyone’s different schedules as much as possible.

If you have any questions, please visit the DCI’s D Teams webpage or email dci@davidson.edu. And please forward this post onto anyone you know who might be interested in learning about this opportunity.

Party Conventions and…Deliberation?

August 27, 2020 by Graham Bullock Leave a Comment

For those who have watched any of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions over the past two weeks, the notion of deliberative citizenship was probably not the first thing that came to mind. Facing the realities of the current pandemic, these events have completed their transformation into fully ritualized and performative exercises for the parties involved. This process began decades ago, arguably first with the decision to broadcast the convention live on the radio in 1924 and on television in 1940.¹ It was then accelerated by the primary/caucus system that made the outcomes of the conventions all but pre-determined.

But conventions have not always been so staged and predictable – the first Democratic Convention heard over the radio in 1924 required 103 ballots to determine its nominee (JohnDavis) and the first televised GOP Convention in 1940 nominated a surprise “dark horse” candidate (Wendell Wilkie).² Some commentators have lamented the loss of the deliberative element of conventions that drove this unpredictability but enabled a broader range of the party faithful to engage with one another on the future of their party.³ Before conventions were organized in the 1830s, presidential nominees were selected by each party’s congressional delegation of senators and representatives.⁴

Even the first conventions, however, were constrained by efforts to project unity and unanimity in preparation for the coming general election. The Chairman of the 1835 Democratic Convention, for example, asked for the proceedings to be “marked by a spirit of the utmost harmony and union” and that delegates “be willing to sacrifice all personal predilections and preferences.”⁵

Given these dynamics, how can we make sense of the role of party conventions? In theory, they are designed to enable parties and their members to exercise the three forms of civic agency that Danielle Allen outlines – “disinterested deliberation, prophetic frame shifting, and fair fighting.”⁶ They bring together people who share at least some interests to listen to each other and collectively plot a path forward, in terms of ideology, policy, and electoral strategy. They provide a platform for them to then share their vision with the broader public, and to continue the process of fighting – ideally following ethical norms of fairness – to win at the ballot box.

In reality, however, these forms of civic agency can often be in tension. Some prophecies may create strategic problems or not be accessible to deliberative exploration; deliberation can be seen as hampering the process of both frame-shifting and election-winning; and the short-term focus on racking up wins may undermine both deliberative and prophetic efforts. Great prophets may not make good deliberators or good strategists; great deliberators may have an aversion to both prophetic declarations and political battles, and great fighters may not always see the utility of either deliberation or prophecy.

Given these tensions, conventions may have bit off more than they could chew, and it was perhaps inevitable that they would shed at least one of these civic functions. Deliberation was the natural one to go, particularly as advances in communication technology enabled long-distance coordination on party priorities. Deliberation also can project a sense of discord and dissension among the ranks. Party members can deliberate with each other in person, over the phone, or now over Zoom – why do they need to do it at a convention?

But the unfortunate reality is that such “grassroots” deliberation is not that common. Polls have found that only 1 out of 4 people discussed politics in the last week with family or friends, over half have stopped talking about politics with someone and find it stressful and frustrating to talk about politics with people they disagree with, and nearly two-thirds feel the political climate prevents them from saying things they believe.⁷

This is a problem because democracy, in short, needs deliberation. It needs it not only between those who deeply disagree, but also among those who at least appear to agree on many things. Done poorly or ended prematurely, it can indeed reveal and exacerbate sources of tension and conflict. But done well, deliberation enables us to understand the experiences, emotions, and reasons that underlie each other’s political positions. It provides us with a space where we can share our prophetic commitments and can reveal to us why we should fight fairly with one another. And it compels us to seek out and implement new solutions that address all of our concerns, not just our own. But it takes time and planning, and it often seems expedient to prioritize action over talk.

Both talk and action are important, and sometimes action needs to come before talk. But it is also important to realize that talk can also be a form of action, and it is necessary to create any real sense of unity, whether it is within an organization, a school, a party, or a nation. Without such unity born out of meaningful deliberation, any action we take risks being reversed by those we never spent the time to truly talk with. And such lack of unity creates the conditions for the implementation of policies that threaten our democratic freedoms under the pretense of an illegitimate demand for order and a false claim of fraternity.

So conventions may not be, and may never have been, the best way to foster such deliberation, but we still need to find, or create, the forums in which we – as party members, as citizens, as human beings – can productively deliberate with one another. Our democracy depends on it.

Picture above from Cornell University Library

Facilitation – A Key Ingredient to Productive Deliberation

August 13, 2020 by Graham Bullock Leave a Comment

Creating spaces for constructive conversations about contentious topics seems like an overwhelming task. Where should initiatives like the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative begin? Deliberation scholars and practitioners generally agree that one of the most important ingredients for productive public discourse is strong facilitation by someone who is trained in bringing people together and being fair to all participants at the table.

For example, Laurie Mulvey, Executive Director of Penn State’s World in Conversation program, which has hosted more than 30,000 dialogues, asserts that just as we need referees when we play a game, “in dialogue we need conversation referees to be able to make the calls for us to help us through the process.”[i] And the literature on deliberation emphasizes the role that facilitators can play in introducing unmentioned topics, challenging consensus, and structuring communication in a way that empowers disadvantaged participants.”[ii]

For these reasons, the DCI started with an intensive four-session deliberation facilitation training program this past spring. Each session lasted two hours and were facilitated by practitioners and professors familiar with different models of public discourse. The training program revealed several important insights about creating opportunities for discourse among those disagree on difficult issues:

It’s a mindset: Both participants and facilitators need to adopt a set of dispositions that make productive deliberation possible. These include commitments to modeling egalitarianism, demonstrating openmindedness, and providing either experiential or factual evidence to support one’s claims. To explore these mindsets, participants were asked to complete the OpenMinds modules, which discuss the value of engaging with those we disagree, the importance of intellectual humility, and the effects of the irrational mind and our “moral matrices.” Using this framework, facilitators can help participants embrace a “deliberative mindset” that will enable them to work together to better understand a problem and generate transcendent solutions to it.
It’s a process: Our first two training sessions were led by an experienced facilitator from the Lee Institute, Chryrstal Joy, who emphasized the multifaceted nature of the facilitation process. It requires thoughtful preparation beforehand that clearly identifies roles, clarifies goals, and develops mutually accepted ground rules. It also demands proactive moderation that guides, connects, motivates, questions, intervenes, and keeps participants on track during the deliberation itself. We discussed the nuances of each of these steps, each of which have their challenges. But by following a clear process, it becomes easier to practice the “passionate impartiality” that is necessary to bring everyone into the conversation.
It’s a model: Dialogue and deliberation initiatives have proliferated dramatically in the past three decades, and with them the number of models being used to facilitate public discourse have increased as well. In our third and fourth sessions, we learned and practiced two particular approaches that have been used in a wide range of contexts. The first was the National Issues Forum model, which provides Issue Briefs for participants to read in advance and focuses on three distinct responses to the issue in focus. The second was the Living Room Conversations model, which is more informal and involves three rounds of discussion – getting to know each other, exploring a topic, and reflecting on the conversation.

Through these sessions, we learned several important insights about deliberation facilitation. By encouraging a deliberative mindset, following a clear process, and using a particular model, facilitators can increase the likelihood that a conversation will be engaging, productive, and rewarding. At the same time, we also realized there is no perfect process or model or mindset, and flexibility and adaptability are important attributes for facilitators and deliberators alike. Along these lines, we came to recognize that facilitation training is never fully complete, but is a lifelong process that occurs through practice, reading, and exposure to new approaches.

The 25 Davidson staff members, tenured and visiting faculty, and first year, sophomore, junior, and senior students who completed the DCI’s inaugural training program have completed a key first step in this journey. They are now ready to help guide conversations on difficult topics, whether they are part of a Deliberative Forum or just between friends or family. If you are interested in learning these skills yourself, sign up for updates below about upcoming DCI training opportunities.

Next week we’ll hear from Davidson’s new DCI Coordinator, Clare Magee, about her experience bringing together students with diverse perspectives when she served as the Executive Director of the Henry Clay Center for Statesmanship. Stay tuned…!

Notes

[i] Democracy Works, “A Conversation about Conversation,” May 21, 2018, https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com/a-conversation-about-conversation/.

[ii] Archon Fung, “Deliberation’s Darker Side: Six Questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge,” National Civic Review, December 25, 2004; Todd Trenel and Seeta Peña Matthias, “Facilitation and Inclusive Deliberation,” in Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (Chicago, IL: CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press, 2009), https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4040.0883.

Welcome to the DCI’s New Website!

July 1, 2020 by Graham Bullock Leave a Comment

Welcome to the new website of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative! Over the past year, we’ve been connecting and talking with as many people as we can on and off campus about the need for more intentional and productive discourse about the issues that matter to us. We’ve sensed a deep and palpable desire for such discourse, and are excited to begin creating opportunities for people to satisfy this need and meaningfully connect and engage with one another.

This website provides an overview of our vision and goals for the initiative as well as the various programs and components that we’ll be working on in the coming months and years. From small group discussions to larger forums on current issues and events in the news, we want to create times and spaces for conversations that go deeper than soundbytes and epithets and enable us to really explore the origins of our disagreements and the possibilities for shared understanding and action.

We are deeply committed to being as inclusive as possible and collaborating with other groups and organizations that share an interest in promoting more democratic discourse. So if you are interested in connecting with us, please contact us and sign-up for updates below. We’ll be adding new blog posts here regularly on our activities and themes related to deliberation, but in the meantime please explore the rest of our site. More soon!