Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Fellow Posts

How Empathic Intelligence Can Improve Our Discourse: Reflecting on Christy Vines’s Visit to Davidson

by

Christy Vines Fall 2023 Empathic Intelligence in the Classroom Workshop

Grace Gallagher ’26 (DCI Fellow)

This fall semester, the DCI brought Christy Vines to campus for our Fall Speaker Series. She led a workshop, screening of her film, Dialogue Lab: America, and a campus lecture to share her various thoughts and experiences about empathic intelligence with the Davidson community.

Before hearing her speak, I did not know anything about Empathic Intelligence (EI), but her events taught me a lot about it and provided me with a new perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to her thoughts, and I have found several applications of her points to our work with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.

First, she stressed the importance of being “effective” rather than being “right” in conversations with others. I have noticed through my D Teams, the forums that we have had, and through DCI Fellows meetings and discussions, that adopting this mindset makes deliberating much more productive and rewarding. Many of our most contentious topics in the world are topics with varying perspectives and without a “correct” answer, or without an answer we can all agree on. For example, one of our D Team meetings was about abortion. When individuals disagree about the ethics of abortion, the most productive action that can be taken is explaining to others where your opinion comes from and why you believe what you believe to make sure that others understand different perspectives. Abortion is an issue in our society that lacks agreement, making these conversations especially beneficial.

Another point that Christy Vines discussed was the idea that you do not need to change someone’s opinion very much at all in order to have a significant impact. She used the metaphor of a gauge that moves someone 5 degrees in the moment, such as in the direction of a large ship. At first this does not seem like much of a change, but that 5 degrees will keep them going in a new direction for a long time and cause them to end up in a very different place. Simply expressing where your opinion comes from can potentially provide someone with that 5 degree gauge rotation that informs, challenges, and orients them towards a different perspective.

In my opinion, these two points seem incredibly important and beneficial to think about when discussing contentious topics with others. However, these ideas are both much easier to talk about and understand than to utilize when deliberating. When deliberating about a topic that is important to you, I believe that it can sometimes be really difficult to follow the deliberative dispositions and agreements because your emotions can overtake what you are saying, but these ideas can help individuals to refocus their points more effectively.

I have had the opportunity to participate in DCI deliberations from the perspective of both a deliberator and a facilitator. Last Fall, before I became a DCI Fellow, I was a deliberator in the D Team series on elections, focusing on election security, fairness, and accessibility. As a deliberator, I experienced some of my deliberations having very cohesive opinions and others with opposing views, especially regarding recent elections. This year, I am a DCI Fellow, and I have experienced both of these different scenarios as a facilitator. As a deliberator, it is much harder to comprehend if others are gaining any value from your points and whether they are believing you are wrong or truly trying to understand your view. As a facilitator, I believe it is much easier to recognize when someone’s point is being effective and engaging others into their view. This is apparent when participants begin to let their guards down, connect with others further, and realize new ideas. 

The Subjectivity Trap

by

Arshi Husain facilitating a deliberation

Arshiya Shirin Husain ’26 (DCI Fellow)

“Subjective,” I’ve noticed, is a word that gets thrown around a lot in today’s day and age—not only in colloquial conversations, but also in mainstream media and politics.

I often hear people use subjectivity as a means to settle debates: “Oh, but morality is subjective,” one might say in order to resolve an argument on abortion or gun violence. While I can see how this is a reasonable defense, for reasons I’ve never been able to articulate well enough, it’s always bothered me.

The issue with the “subjectivity argument” (as I call it), in my opinion, is that it leaves no room for healthy debate, dialogue, or discussion.

My time so far as a DCI Fellow has taught me that there is an important distinction between respecting different opinions and understanding different opinions. Perhaps our world is too quick to do the former without paying any heed to the latter. In other words, in our attempt to become “respectful individuals,” we stop asking questions that are often difficult, yet necessary, to ask. In an ideal world, we want respect to go hand-in-hand with understanding.

As an example, I might not agree with somebody who proposes that the United States should have stricter immigration laws. But asking questions such as, “What makes you say that?” or, “Can you tell me more about why you think this?” will help me discover what the other person values and how their own life experiences come into play. Hearing the other side of the story might not change my own political views, but it will ignite a conversation that will allow me to humanize the people on the “other side.” Whereas in a world where I never asked the aforementioned questions, I would continue to feel disconnected from those with different opinions than mine. In the long run, this could lead to issues such as internal resentment being built up on either side.

As a DCI Fellow, I completed a series of lessons by the Constructive Dialogue Institute (CDI) titled Perspectives. One thing that struck me was the idea of how the same values can lie at the core of different opinions. For instance, you might value protecting all forms of life. Perhaps, for Person A, this could mean that they identify as a Republican and take a pro-life stance in the debate on abortion. For Person B, it could mean that they identify as a Democrat and advocate for stricter gun-control in America.

The point here is that disagreements will always exist, as will the subjective nature of most opinions and beliefs. Does this mean that there’s simply no point in arguing or deliberating? Certainly not. If anything, continued disagreement should push societies to engage in even more dialogue to try and see how people might see the world through different lenses.

Additionally, despite degrees of subjectivity, we might often find ourselves surprised to discover the similarities that lie at the hearts of supposedly different arguments. While our beliefs may differ, it is likely that our values do not.

A preconceived notion many have regarding deliberation is that all parties have to reach an agreement, since it is easy to think about deliberation as being only applicable when we are trying to come to a decision about something practical. The DCI taught me that this might be an underlying reason for why we may be afraid to engage in discussions in the first place. But if we all came into conversations with the goal to simply understand, rather than to convince, the world would be a better place.

This concept is further explored in Chapter 2 of Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason by Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse. Aikin and Talisse emphasize the importance of developing a sense of cognitive command, a concept that focuses on controlled thinking and making active decisions rather than passive ones.

What good does it do anybody to move through the world not knowing why people think the way they do, or act the way they do? Sure, morality and beliefs may be subjective. But should we also not try to unearth the mysteries that lie beneath the surface? Should we not try to investigate the root causes of this subjectivity? If for no other reason than to solidify our own beliefs, as individuals.

Society has led us to believe that respecting different opinions and questioning different opinions is mutually exclusive. But this is simply a logical fallacy that, in the long run, only creates further divide and polarization. Look beyond the false dichotomy and you’re likely to find that we become more tolerant of others’ opinions when we can appreciate the reasoning behind them. After all, empathy is closely tied with the ability to understand others.

The Mediums of Deliberation: How Does Each Create Meaningful Conversation and Promote Community? 

by

AI image of people deliberating at a table

Logan Jain ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Like so many of my peers, interacting in the Zoom space is nothing new to me. While the necessary constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic provided the initial introduction, I still regularly find myself on Zoom for a variety of reasons. Frequently, I’m thankful for the technological impact of Zoom, allowing me access to people and information that I might not otherwise be privy to.  

This was the case a few weeks ago when sickness prevented me from physically attending the DCI’s first facilitator training session of the year, but a well-integrated virtual option allowed me to still take part. A week later, no longer ill, I attended the second training session in-person. Each session featured a mock deliberation, and comparing my experience in this activity across the two mediums allowed me to think about the benefits and drawbacks of each as a conduit for constructive and meaningful deliberation.  

One of the stated goals of the DCI is to build community via deliberation. When we hear the word community, there can be an inclination to view it as rooted in a physical location (college community, neighborhood community, etc.). However, digital platforms disrupt this notion, allowing deliberative communities to form that transcend physical location.  

My deliberative group on Zoom was geographically diverse, and also more diverse along racial and generational lines than my in-person group.   

This was certainly no coincidence; the town of Davidson is over 85% white compared to a national average of 60%. And because of the College, most of my in-person group was composed of fellow students. Meaningful deliberation requires a diversity of viewpoints, and one way to increase that diversity is through participation from individuals with different life experiences, demographic backgrounds, and identities. The geographic segregation of America makes this difficult, but virtual engagement makes it more possible, allowing individuals to join the collective act of deliberation regardless of their location.   

Community-building also relies on the quality and authenticity of interaction. During my in-person mock deliberation, I found nuanced elements of human interaction, such as eye contact and body language, to be a critical part of this process. The conversation flowed in a manner that I hadn’t experienced on Zoom, and I left feeling a deeper connection to the individuals whom I deliberated with. 

Perhaps this was also a product of my concentration. On Zoom, I found it more challenging to feel actively engaged in the conversation as the effects of staring at a computer screen sapped my focus. Face-to-face, I was invigorated by the emotions of those around me and felt like it took far less effort to maintain a necessary level of engagement.  

Ultimately, rather than determine that one medium is unequivocally better than the other for deliberation, I came to the conclusion that each has its own strengths and weaknesses and has an important role in furthering the DCI’s mission. Some elements of the in-person experience that aid in building community are lost over Zoom. However, Zoom increases the accessibility of deliberation, exposing individuals to viewpoints that they might not otherwise encounter in their daily lives.  

From a pessimistic perspective, one could argue that something is lost in each medium. However, I prefer a more optimistic stance, appreciating each medium for the unique deliberative experience it has to offer. 

Note: The image above was generated by ChatGPT4.

The Power of Deliberation: Embracing New Ideas

by

DCI Fellow Florian Moser facilitating a deliberation

Florian Moser ’26 (DCI Fellow)

My initial interest in the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative was sparked last year in a conversation at the DCI kickoff party in the College Union. My group and our facilitator argued about a geopolitical topic on which I held a strong opinion. Therefore, I was trying to defend my point of view and counterargue opposing opinions. At that point, our facilitator interrupted me to ensure everybody could speak, forcing me to listen to other ideas. At that moment, I started to understand the difference between deliberation and debate. I want to compare these two approaches since, in today’s society, debate is the more prominent approach to conversation.

Confrontational vs. Collaborative: Debates and Deliberation

Debates are typically confrontational, with participants firmly entrenched in their positions, aiming to prove their viewpoint’s superiority. In contrast, deliberation is a more open and cooperative process focused on understanding different perspectives, reaching common ground, and appreciating diverse ideas. The key distinction lies in how people react to opposing views. In debates, individuals often defensively cling to their positions, sometimes at the expense of genuinely listening to others. Deliberation, however, encourages active listening and open-mindedness, fostering a collaborative environment that values constructive dialogue and the exploration of different viewpoints.

Since we are so used to debating, it is common for participants of DCI events to recognize the significant difference between deliberation and debate for the first time. In my first mock deliberation, during a DCI facilitator training, my facilitator ensured that every participant expressed their ideas in every round of the deliberation. This strong emphasis on equal-length speech contributions from all deliberations lets people formulate their ideas who might not be used to getting the chance to speak up. 

Instead of getting stuck in a debate about two specific viewpoints, participants gain many ideas they might not have considered before. The exchange of ideas and the practice of leaning into a different perspective holds two advantages. First, it is more valuable for the deliberators to gain new ideas, improving their worldview in the long run, than just winning an argument. Second, deliberations help to foster soft skills, strongly contributing to respectful and productive conversations. These soft skills help create a respectful and constructive environment in the long run, whether in debates or deliberations.

Here, I want to list some critical soft skills:

  1. Active Listening: In deliberation, listening isn’t passive; it’s an active effort to understand and appreciate the viewpoints of others.
  2. Open-Mindedness: Participants should be open to changing their views based on new information or insights.
  3. Respectful Communication: Encourage respectful and civil discourse, where participants can express themselves without fear of personal attacks.
  4. Seek Common Ground: Look for shared values and common objectives as a starting point for finding solutions.
  5. Value Diverse Perspectives: Recognize that diversity of thought leads to more creative and effective solutions.

The Benefits of Deliberation

Deliberation offers several advantages over debate. It promotes collaboration, reduces polarization, and fosters a sense of unity among participants. Moreover, drawing on broader ideas and perspectives can lead to better decision-making. In today’s complex and interconnected world, where many of the challenges we face require innovative solutions, deliberation is a practice that should be embraced and celebrated. It allows us to move beyond the limitations of our own perspectives and tap into the collective intelligence of diverse groups.

Conclusion

While debate has its place and can be a valuable tool for exploring differences, deliberation shines as a means to appreciate and harness new ideas. In deliberation, we see the true power of open-mindedness, empathy, and collaboration, and these qualities can help us navigate the complexities of our rapidly changing world. So, let us strive to embrace deliberation, for in doing so, we unlock the potential for collective growth, understanding, and progress.

Why Argue?

by

DCI Fellow Monty Krakovitz facilitating a deliberation

Monty Krakovitz ’25 (DCI Fellow)

As part of the deliberative training for the DCI Fellows, we were asked to read a section from the book written by Scott Akin and Robert Talisse titled “Why We Argue (And How We Should).” The book shows the importance of political deliberation from the perspective of Aristotle . The authors present the view of Aristotle that “man is a political animal” and that what we believe or do in the privacy of our own home affects society at large.

When Aristotle makes this claim, he doesn’t necessarily mean politics in terms of voting. He conceives of politics as how individuals relate to one another to form communities. From the moment that each of us are brought into this world, we are defined by our relationships to others. The newborn is not an isolated individual, but is someone’s son or daughter who relies on his or her mother and father for support. Likewise, the new mother is also not an isolated individual, but has obligations to her child. The term “political animal” means nearly everyone has duties and relationships with others, who also have relationships with others, connecting everyone together to form the society at large.

The authors also give an example of private beliefs affecting others as well. For example, a person, let’s call her Nancy, schedules a picnic at the park with the false view that the weather is sunny when it is clearly raining, and proceeds to invite her family from out of town to the picnic. The family does not know that it is raining at the park because they are coming from a distance. After being falsely told that the weather is perfect, they all drive in to find out that the weather is not, in fact, perfect but is pouring rain. The family has now wasted their day because the person who scheduled the picnic held the false belief that the weather is nice. Nancy’s false belief about the weather led her to act on that belief, which in turn inconvenienced her family in a large way.

This example displays a relatively low-cost error considering that no one was harmed, but the same principle can be applied to  other circumstances where the consequence of holding false beliefs is much higher. The truth is that ideas have consequences. When a man holds a false belief, he is likely to act in accordance with that false belief, leading to bad behavior that affects others in his community.

This semester, one of the D Team deliberations will be on abortion which is a topic ripe for discussion. The D Team will get down to the root of people’s beliefs in order to discover why citizens hold the views that they do. It is clear that a person’s views on this moral, political, and ultimately religious issue affects their actions. From the Pro-Life perspective, holding a false moral view on abortion directly affects the unborn child whose life is now endangered by the mother’s false view on the sanctity of life. From the Pro-Choice perspective, the false view that abortion is a moral evil leads citizen to vote in a way that infringes on the mother’s bodily autonomy.

This is why deliberation is vital: our private views do matter, and they matter deeply. In some cases, a false opinion can lead to minor inconveniences. In others, a false opinion can lead to the death of an unborn child or the loss of a women’s bodily autonomy. That is why it is important to argue: it helps avoid the high cost of error and aids in answering the big questions facing our society today.