Fellow Posts

By Meggie Lesher, DCI Fellow

As a research librarian at Davidson, I regularly run into controversy, whether it is cutting edge yet contested scientific findings or problematic interpretations of historical events. I am often reminded that “a truly great library has something in it to offend everyone,” a quote from fellow librarian Jo Goodwin that circulates widely during Banned Books Week or when censorship issues fire up on social media.^[1] Libraries have a long tradition of navigating a delicate balance between being public spaces for all and the need to regulate these spaces.

For example, most public libraries allow community groups to use meeting rooms and similar spaces within the library building. Not long ago, the American Library Association (ALA) revisited the Library Bill of Rights as it pertained to meeting room policies. A white supremacist group booked a public library meeting room, which sparked controversy over who can use library spaces. The ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee proposed the following language about library meeting rooms:

“Public libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum. A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but if it chooses to do so, it cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech. This encompasses religious, political, and hate speech.

“If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms, then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities.”^[2]

This language was adopted by the ALA in June 2018, and this decision did not go over well; library staff took to Twitter to share #NoHateALA and demonstrated their disagreement with the inclusion of hate groups in the guidance. The ALA subsequently voted to rescind this interpretation and return to the original language of the Library Bill of Rights released in 1991, included below:

“VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.”[3]

Concerned parties, both from the public and library staff, wanted the ALA to go further and affirm that hate speech and hate groups did not belong in the library. Returning to an older version of the Library Bill of Rights seemed like a step in the wrong direction to many critics of the decision. Yet, libraries have the responsibility to maintain access to information and public spaces no matter the affiliation or activities of the groups desiring to use the space. Libraries must call on agreements, such as the Library Bill of Rights, to ensure fairness. While affirming its commitment to intellectual freedom, the ALA has also encouraged libraries to “adopt and enforce user behavior policies that protect library users and staff from harassment.”[4]

The balance between fairness and regulation reminds me of the figurative space we enter together when preparing to deliberate. Just like libraries, there is a real need to regulate such spaces. For those new to DCI, we begin each deliberation with our conversation agreements. These agreements cover the ground rules for how we treat each other as well as guidelines about how to approach the discussion. Essentially, they hold us together while keeping us accountable. Regulation may seem like too strong of a word for our conversation agreements, yet we completed plenty of training about how to create an environment conducive to reaching a deliberative state— another type of delicate balance! We foster a shared understanding when we follow our conversation agreements and participate in difficult conversations together. Without at least some regulation, the deliberative space seems untenable and difficult to maintain. Let’s consider those agreements below.

Conversation Agreements

Each of these agreements suggests both norms to follow in the conversation as well as behaviors to avoid. For example, “be an attentive and active listener” suggests showing clearly – e.g., through your body language and your responsiveness to what others say — that you are listening to other members of the group. This agreement also suggests that being an inattentive and passive listener – playing with your phone, getting distracted, interrupting, not acknowledging others’ views – is not appropriate behavior in a deliberative context. Most of the time these agreements are internalized and followed without any problem, but sometimes the group or the facilitator may need to intervene to remind everyone of them (and in rare occasions enforce them).

Another way to consider the need for coordination and agreement in deliberative spaces is to reflect on what debate looks like in our daily lives. “Debate” is often acrimonious, combative, and rarely conclusive or inspiring. It’s more for entertainment on TV rather than an opportunity to learn from each other as we grapple with difficult questions. This style of TV debate lacks the regulation that we employ in deliberation. I see the parallels with the ALA issues on meeting spaces; without regulation, we are not nearly as democratic as we can be. Even though everyone may not agree with the ALA’s current guidance related to library spaces, the decision reflects the necessary structures that encourage democracy, just as the structures within deliberation allow us to fully participate together. As we honor structures like the conversation agreements, we are better able to enter deliberative spaces with as much equity, access, and shared respect as possible.

Image Link: https://www.oif.ala.org/oif/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/OIF-post-meeting-rooms-e1531248052538-730×589.png

 

^[1] Learn more about censorship on this podcast episode from Brooklyn Public Library’s Borrowed Podcast.
https://www.bklynlibrary.org/podcasts/something-offend-everyone

^[2] Yorio, Lisa Peet & Kara. “ALA Rolls Back Inclusion of Hate Groups in Bill of Rights Revision.” Library Journal. Accessed November 06, 2021. https://www.libraryjournal.com?detailStory=free-speech-debate-erupts-with-alas-inclusion-of-hate-groups-in-revision-of-bill-of-rights-interpretation.

Image: LaRue, Jamie. “Library Meeting Rooms for All.” Intellectual Freedom Blog (blog), July 10, 2018. https://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=14997.

[3] American Library Association. “Library Bill of Rights.” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

[4] American Library Association. “Meeting Rooms: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/meetingrooms

 

 

 

 

By Kelly McLoughlin, DCI Fellow

QAnon is defined as a far-right conspiracy theory and movement that is centered around an anonymous government official named Q who shares state secrets with his followers, called “anons.” These theories include ideas that the U.S. government is trafficking children, that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, and others that encompass unvalidated information regarding Black Lives Matter, Covid-19, and recent presidential and local elections. In sum, QAnon is a haven for far-right conservatives to share their views.

I am particularly interested in QAnon because of how it is increasingly recruiting “anons” – with 15% of the nation and 30% of Republicans agreeing with many of the core ideas of the QAnon conspiracy theory. I believe QAnon continues to gain popularity in the U.S. because of a lack of humanity in politics. People are slinking into the depths of the dark web because that is the only place they feel they can share their opinions. In turn, this causes “anons” to receive confirmation that their views are right, which furthers the divide in politics between people.

When pondering QAnon, I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s phrase, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Largely, I am reminded of this because of the current political climate and hostility, which is mirrored by the growth of QAnon. We shut doors on people before we even get to know them. How, like Lincoln references, democracy is at risk because we are seeing past each other, not taking the time to even talk, and forcing those we radically disagree with to the outside of society where they only become more radical. Our minds are already made up about the people around us before having an educated, respectful, honest conversation.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside.” When first hearing this quote, I could almost feel my brain fumbling this quote around, swishing it up and down to understand what it meant. My entire high school, middle school, and even elementary school career I had learned of war. I had learned of the enemy oversees and the enemies that the United States had fought. I remember my teachers always saying, “war boosts morale” or “war is great for the economy,” or even that “war is a unifying force!” I had believed that we protected ourselves from the enemy outside, the only enemy, and that one day the enemy would eventually attempt to destroy us.

As I grew up, I learned I was wrong. Our society is facing destruction from the turmoil within. QAnon continues to grow and poses a grave threat to our democracy. I reference this not because Qanon’s ideas are necessarily the enemy, but because they have receded into a world where there is no true democratic discourse. There is, instead, a political division between parties and a lack of humanity in discussions if they happen. This division and lack of humanity, empathy, and open-mindedness has created an environment that harbors groups like QAnon.

In my opinion, groups like QAnon pose a larger threat than the machine guns and the weapons of destruction that the outside world poses. While during war the country can rally unanimously under the premise of nationalism, groups like QAnon destroy the country from within so there can be no unification, but instead a turning of neighbor against neighbor. I believe that this turning against one another is more detrimental to democracy because there can be no rallying point that the nation unites against, as is commonly seen when tragedies happen and war breaks out.

“If we falter and lose our freedoms …” We are faltering. And I want to say this is good. Healthy democracies falter, healthy people fall. But it is what we do when we are faltering that matters. Do we choose to stay on the ground and bring others down with us? Or do we rise? And, most importantly, if we see someone else on the ground, do we choose to help them up, despite the fact they may not agree with us? Faltering is healthy, but the way our current nation is faltering is not. The attack on the White House on January 6^th proves that we’re faltering. We’re faltering because we cannot see humanity in others; we are faltering because we don’t give people a chance to express themselves without cancel culture, backlash, or intimidation playing a part. Therefore, I believe people are taking to QAnon because we live in a society where rights and wrongs are absolute. And if you’re a wrong in someone’s eyes, then you are not worth their time.

Contrarily, I believe that the problems surrounding conspiracies, suspicions, and theories can be curtailed, but perhaps not entirely eradicated. Following in March when President Trump did not return to take the Presidency, like Q had predicted, many “anons” stopped following Q. In that sense, some people can abandon conspiracies. On the other hand, I do not think that everyone will do so because we live in a society where many of us are unable to recognize our mistakes and see the humanity in others. I think the only way to actively curb conspiracies like QAnon is deliberation and genuine public discourse. The DCI has been working towards this goal of seeing not only the issue at hand, but the humans who support it. It is working to help people overcome the challenges of a highly opinionated society by helping people relate to common goals or common moral foundations to help cure the division in our society.

“We destroyed ourselves.” Currently, I see ways in which we are destroying ourselves. I see it in the fact that actual conversation has disappeared and that we lean on confirmation bias too much, much like how QAnon allows people to stay complicit in their theories and speculation. Most importantly, we lack deliberation. If we were to start applying methods of deliberation in our broader society, I believe that we could understand each other, have a more productive public sphere, and be reconnected as a nation. When using deliberation, people can see more than the issue at hand. They understand why people formulate their beliefs, how their morals influence their beliefs, and what they care about. Deliberation helps rekindle the humanity in politics and leads to true productivity. And by productivity, I mean an understanding and a sense that despite disagreement, there is an acknowledgement that every citizen is doing their best to participate in democratic society.

QAnon and other similar radical political sites will destroy our nation if we do not invite those who are attracted to them into the public square. We have already seen how that has played out in society so far. How to do this is a challenge, but it will be a challenge that will benefit our nation. If we cannot have enough humanity to sit down and talk honestly, then we risk losing the social fabric that holds our society together. Humanity is built on interconnectedness; in fact, it is natural to disagree and argue, but the way that our society disagrees and argues is one I cannot stand by. Yelling, screaming, pitching a fit, and creating a conspiracy theorist website is not what is going to prevent destruction. It is sitting down with someone you’ve never met, someone you disagree with, someone you know nothing about and getting to know them.

I challenge you to try this. To approach someone you know, or don’t know, who does not share the same political views as you and talk to them. I tried this last week and it turns out I was able to find a shared sense that we cared about religion but also agreed that hot dogs are nasty. Though this new acquaintance and I disagreed on political matters, we found that we have some commonalities. This opportunity to connect made us aware of our shared humanity and consequently we established mutual respect, despite our differences. We connected on a level of values, not of policy or politics, but instead on whether we value care or liberty or loyalty.

This way, we were not talking past each other, but instead connecting with each other to have a genuine conversation. Humane instincts, connecting to values, and being an active listener allowed us to have a meaningful conversation because we were including what matters to us and why and listening to how we came to these life experiences … which both revolved around summer camp hot dogs. By listening to each other and connecting on a level of values, we understood one another and why we held those viewpoints. I challenge you to try this – it is difficult, but it is worth it.

Deliberation is not just about politics, it is about creating meaningful, intelligent, honest, and loving connections. It is hard, but the further we isolate politics and humanity, the more people will continue to flock to QAnon and other sites and in all, the more likely we will experience the destruction that Lincoln predicts.

By Carla Cole, DCI Coordinator

As the holidays approach, many of us will be gathering with friends and family. At some point, politics is likely to rear its (often ugly) head during conversations. Should we retreat or engage? 2020-2021 DCI Fellow Dalton Langdon responds, “engage,” and I agree! Political discussions don’t have to be nasty or even contentious – we can actually make them productive and meaningful by utilizing deliberative skills and adopting deliberative dispositions! In his 2020 blog, Dalton offers guidance for engaging in political conversations during the holidays. In addition to his suggestions, I encourage us to all embrace a commitment to egalitarianism, humility, open-mindedness, curiosity, empathy and charity . Embracing these deliberative dispositions allows us to foster our shared humanity, find common ground, and leave conversations feeling fulfilled, not frustrated.

When we treat our interlocutors as equal participants in a conversation, we demonstrate respect for their humanity and perspectives. When we approach others with humility, we understand that we do not know everything; this allows us an opportunity to grow from learning the perspectives of others. When we engage with an open mind and curiosity, we allow ourselves to expand the scope of our own knowledge and truly hear the ideas of others.

When we approach others with empathy, we demonstrate compassion for others and respond to disagreements with goodwill. When we offer charity, we assume the best – and not the worst – about others, and we are able to navigate disagreements with grace.

When we actively listen to others, we are able to fully hear and consider their perspectives. When we approach a conversation with anticipation, we are open to changing our own positions based on good argument and reason. When we use evidence to support our perspectives, our arguments are more robust and meaningful. When we seek to find common ground, we find our shared humanity. When we find common ground, we are able to generate solutions to shared problems.

So, this holiday season, try adopting deliberative dispositions and following the recommendations Dalton offers in his blog so you may deck the halls – not your uncle!

 

By Henry Griffith, DCI Fellow

Political division and hostility have almost unambiguously grown to new heights in recent decades in most modern democracies around the world. Most citizens pay more attention to politics and their political experiences than ever before; yet, despite this tangible political vigor, proper democratic behavior has been stunted with the intensified hostility that individuals feel towards people with different views.

Such a state of democracy is, at least in part, the reason for the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative in the first place. And in my short stint in the DCI, I have seen firsthand the ability of deliberation to cool down some of these emotional political responses that have become almost natural in today’s democracy. I wish to pursue a parallel thought that commends deliberation for its successes while also recognizing that as a political activity it could result in a further continuation of the cycle of polarization that we see play out today. In this way, I hope to paint a more comprehensive picture of deliberation’s successes, its possible risks, and the ways that the deliberative process itself might actively help ease those risks within the context of current democracies.

Many of these ideas originate from Robert Talisse’s book, titled Overdoing Democracy, which I studied in a course last spring. In it, Talisse, a Vanderbilt professor of philosophy, argues that we have pushed democracy to an extreme, wherein politics seemingly occupies or is reflected in all parts of our lives. As he points out, people seem to have gained the uncanny ability to connect consumption choices with someone’s political beliefs. For example, an individual’s choice to drive a truck or a hybrid has become an almost natural signal of their purported political beliefs. While this form of political association has long existed, more and more of our seemingly mundane activities, such as where we buy our coffee or which gym we belong to, are becoming associated with a political valence. He attributes this ability and this growing reflection to what he calls political infiltration, and specifically to the “reach” of politics into our lives.

Political infiltration can help to explain the gradually deteriorating wall that we see today between our conceptions of the individual and the citizen. In other words, politics is infiltrating our lives to such a degree that we have grown to regard ourselves and others first and foremost as citizens rather than people. This shift is crucial, for it means that previously benign actions and choices have become deeply connected with people’s political identities. Due to this deteriorated wall, many citizens now understandably interact with politics with greater outrage, for it has become increasingly difficult for people to separate attacks on their ideas from attacks on their person. This idea leads into the next key components of political infiltration: political sorting and political fandom.

Due to the difficulty of separating attacks on ideas from attacks on the person, many people have physically sorted themselves in life in order that they don’t suffer as many of these “‘personal” attacks. It has therefore become more commonplace for the people at someone’s favorite coffee shop, grocery store, or just within one’s neighborhood to share similar political beliefs. The danger in this sorting can be seen by understanding group polarization. Group polarization is the gradual process in which individuals surrounded by people that agree with them take on a more extreme version of their original position. The affirmation from those that agree with them seems to provide enough psychological encouragement to where people come to believe in a slightly more extreme position. Through group polarization individuals have gradually intensified their views, leading to the transformation from citizens to political fans who have loyalties to their political “teams” or parties that transcend their loyalty to proper democratic procedure.

It is from this setup of political fandom and group polarization that we can recognize some of deliberation’s possible risks when done improperly. If people’s lives are filled with those who generally agree with them, deliberation could be composed purely of people that agree with each other. This would further the process of group polarization and lead to more intensified views and greater antipathy towards the opposing party. This antipathy is particularly troublesome because proper deliberation and democracy rely on a mutual trust that the people with whom one disagrees will respect the process and engage as rational participants. Thus, a possible risk of deliberation is that it could transform political fans into even greater political fans. And, as we have seen in recent years in the United States, distrust of and antipathy towards those with alternative views can result in the refusal to listen to them, meaning that people become more group polarized and even greater political fans. This is the polarization cycle and given that deliberation can be understood as a political activity, it is possible that improper deliberation would only further this cycle.

Despite these risks of deliberation, it has built-in defense mechanisms which, when done properly, help to ease some of the potential risk of furthering the polarization cycle. The first element of proper deliberation necessary to mention are the set ground rules and agreements that are established from the outset which help to guide the conversation and correct comments that might reflect people’s political fandom. These agreements can help to cool individuals’ knee-jerk comments as the facilitator pushes individuals to provide accessible reasons for their positions. The second related element are the deliberative dispositions, including egalitarianism, humility, and open-mindedness (among others), which are also utilized by the facilitator to push the participants to detach from their potentially instinctual political responses.

A third crucial feature of deliberation, as it relates to group polarization and fandom, is the devil’s advocacy that the facilitator(s) takes on. Deliberation must try its best to represent all voices in the discussion, or at least recognize when certain perspectives might not be present given the people available. This is where proper deliberation can make the most direct impact in countering group polarization. If we recall, group polarization occurs when everyone in a group setting agrees with one another and takes on a more extreme position. But with proper facilitation, devil’s advocacy helps to fill in the potential gaps in beliefs and almost simulate a group composed of different views. In this way, facilitation can limit some of the psychological belief affirmation.

All three of these elements point towards the key distinguishing element of deliberation: facilitation. Facilitation lies at the heart of deliberation, and proper deliberation (especially in a highly politicized environment like we see today) requires facilitation that guides and pushes the participants while playing the devil’s advocate to fill in any gaps in the deliberation.

Political infiltration and fandom have made it exceedingly difficult to separate politics from even the smallest actions and choices in our lives. In his book, Talisse recommends pursuing collective activities that are intentionally non-political to detach from this political inundation. While I believe that such activities would be beneficial, I think it is unreasonable to believe that this alone would succeed in controlling citizens’ growing political fandom. Based on deliberation’s features, it seems like the combination of this non-political activity with proper deliberation could seriously help to lessen the polarization cycle that we see creating political fandom and general antipathy in the broad political environment. While I still believe that the potentially political nature of deliberations could increase polarization in certain cases, proper deliberation with agreements, guidelines, and facilitation seems to present a viable avenue for cooling political distrust and reengaging citizens with the mutual trust in the rationality of their opponents.

 

 

By Douglas Deutsch, DCI Fellow

The spaces around us shape how we act in a variety of ways. This becomes immediately clear if you have ever been trying to concentrate in the same room as a toddler. The spaces in which we deliberate are particularly influential on how a deliberation occurs. Deliberative spaces differ from regular spaces in parallel to how deliberation differs from ordinary conversation.

Deliberative spaces should be carefully and thoughtfully designed. This may look like an environment that accommodates every participant and a division of time which is clearly structured. Is such a measured environment really necessary for deliberation? As a general answer, yes. The deliberation space is the main component that connects participants. The physical connection, whether it is the air between us or the screens between us, impacts the cognitive connection. A poorly structured deliberative space can lead to voices talking over each other.

Environmental Deliberative Space

Deliberative space can be designed very specifically to accommodate the deliberation topic. Since political discourse over environmental issues often occurs only between policymakers and scientists, finding room for citizens’ voices may be difficult. A well designed deliberation space can insert the citizen into the global environmental conversation.

A spectacular example of this is the World Wide Views Alliance (WWV). A study conducted by Rajiv Ghimire, Nathaniel Anbar and Netra B Chhetri titled “The Impact of Public Deliberations on Climate Change Opinions Among U.S. Citizens” refers to a world-wide deliberative gathering on climate and energy. The WWV on climate and energy involved 97 debates [bringing together] around 10,000 citizens in 76 countries spanning five continents” (1).

It is important to note that none of the participants held significant technical knowledge or stakes in the economic sector surrounding climate and energy (1). What is fascinating about this deliberation is how the role of space supplemented the massive scale of this operation. The participants were spread out around the world, and so each participant would meet for day long meetings in their respective countries. A mind-bending fact from this deliberation is simply how “The first meeting started at 9 am in Fiji and the last one ended 27 hours later with a meeting in Arizona” (1). While the deliberation for each participant was limited to those within their respective country, it is hard to imagine how there is not a psychological benefit to being aware of thousands across the globe simultaneously conversing about the same topics.

The parallel between projected environmental impacts and the scale of the WWV operation is noteworthy. Climate change is projected to affect humans as a species. A global deliberation on this topic needs to find the voices of humans, as a species. Making decisions on an international scale is no small task, but it is necessary in this case since no one part of the world can fix climate change all by itself.

Ok, but what about now?

Real life seldom meets the ideal of a perfectly calculated design. Real life includes barriers like Covid-19. Our spaces are very much outside of our control. As we find ourselves using Zoom for our deliberative space, we can look the resulting pros and cons. Cons may include more limited communicative interactions or even just more time on a screen. Pros may include greater outreach potential and increased Covid safety. These pros and cons will be different for everybody.

Ok, great, so if everyone has different opinions on what makes a deliberative space effective, then how can we ever find a space where we can be best connected to each other? In keeping with the thought that reality is just a shade more intricate than the ideal world, such a space will end up being a compromise, attempting to make do with the resources at hand. The participants will have to meet halfway, to where the deliberative space is lacking. On Zoom, this may look like using engaging activities planned by the facilitator and extra effort to engage by the participants.

A second aspect of deliberation arises once the meeting ends. Discussing issues in the outside world can seem a lot more chaotic compared to the measured space of a deliberation. The jarring difference between ‘the outside world’ and the deliberative space is what needs to be addressed for anything that we do in our deliberations to mean anything. It is the outside world we are trying to fix, after all. The conclusions and actions reached inside the bubble of a deliberative community require for people to be in that community. People will not know or be motivated to join deliberative action unless something pushes them into it.

The organizers and participants of deliberation then have a duty to spread awareness of the deliberative gathering. This can manifest in a variety of ways. Perhaps we internalize the guidelines that structure deliberation, telling people “I will approach this conversation with empathy and respect towards you, and would appreciate if you can do the same” before engaging in political discourse. The idea is to spread the spirit of deliberative discourse through day-to-day interactions, in order to encourage people to participate in organized deliberation. Essentially, we can create a deliberative space around us in our mundane day-to-day lives. This is a task that each of us can take on and see tangible success result.

 

Sources:

1. Ghimire, Rajiv, Nathaniel Anbar, and Netra B. Chhetri. 2021. “The Impact of Public Deliberation on Climate Change Opinions Among U.S. Citizens.” Frontiers in Political Science 3: 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.606829.
2. “WWViews Climate and Energy 2015 » Citizen Consultation on Climate Change.” n.d. Accessed October 13, 2021. http://climateandenergy.wwviews.org/.