Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

deliberation

Refresh Your Feed & Your Perspective

by

A balance scale sitting on a table.

Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Fellow)

When we go to restaurants, some of us like steaks, some prefer salads, and some opt for the pasta. News consumption, for most of us, is the same way. We may know people who stick to their BBC, but we may also have friends who prefer the more politically aligned publications such as Jacobin magazine or The American Conservative. But unlike our ways of developing taste and preference for certain culinary consumption habits–trying different items on the menu, comparing calories, examining ingredients–we often do not, or cannot, hold our news sources to the same level of scrutiny.

Social media algorithms, influential people in our lives, and personal biases may lead us to consume one news source or one-sided sources excessively, leading us to neglect the alternative options and miss out on the variety of flavors of coverage on the same events and topics that are out there. We feel confident in our food preferences because we try different options and determine what best suits our personal tastes. With news, we often stick with what we know or what supports our opinions and appears in our search and social media feeds: we have no clue what other options are available to us. Our frequently misguided, or surface-level evaluations of our news sources, pose threats to our abilities to identify media biases and to gain accurate views of perspectives news sources can distort to serve an ulterior agenda.

In our most recent DCI fellows’ cohort meeting, with help from Jayme Sponsel and Davidson’s E.H. Little Library resource website, we evaluated and discussed methods of combating this dilemma, empowering us to diversify our media tastes in order to improve resource awareness and understandings of the varieties of resources and their respective values. As a part of our discussion, we had the opportunity to evaluate our own news feeds and learn about valuable resources designed to inform us on their biases, offering a variety of perspectives to utilize in bolstering our news consumption.

Two resources that allowed me to both identify the biases in sources I did not anticipate and offered a variety of perspective sources I had not been exposed to before were the Interactive Media Bias Chart and AllSides.com. The chart and AllSides offer a trove of sources along with reliable information on their accuracy and political biases. Immediately, the resources offered analyses of news outlets which made me more aware of even slight bias which may influence reporting. These new resources have allowed me to look for a certain left or right tilt in the sources I consume, and also to understand how much of my newsfeed comes from one side’s perspective versus the others.

That’s not the only takeaway from these sources. With this new awareness I can add the variety my information feed, for whatever reason, was lacking. Without the awareness of other options, I would have never made the alterations to my feed this resource has allowed me to begin making. I now subscribe to more newsletters and follow more social media accounts from resources I disagree with. I may be upset by the content they produce, even incensed by the more opposing stories from the side I don’t align with. But that’s a good thing.

Before, only consuming news more aligned with my views because of the ways social media and influences in my life have led me to gravitate towards these sources, I had an extremely simplistic view of other sides and their views. The new variety populating my feed has offered me a far deeper understanding of different perspectives, being that they come from people who actually hold those views rather than those who either seek to discredit or hold implicit biases against them.

Balancing your feed with both an accurate and balanced array of perspective media allows you to be informed in ways only viewing your “side’s” content could never achieve. Much like knowing what you prefer and why at a restaurant, because of your experience and knowledge of other items on the menu, you cannot have fully formed opinions or clear connection to a perspective until you have sought out other perspectives, especially conflicting ones.

Until you have taken the time to listen to and understand the other side, whether through conversation with people or news consumption, you never really know where you stand on an issue. You only think you know because people and sources you generally agree with tell you that a certain stance is the “correct” one. Only after you can compare different arguments can you truly reason through an issue and choose a side, much like you only know what to order at a restaurant after you peruse the menu and compare items. Weighing arguments and an array of information allows us to fully deliberate internally on an issue and understand which stance most closely supports our core values.

Who knows? Balancing your feed may even lead to forming new perspectives and opinions you would never expect to hold. The best foodies like to scan every page of the menu when they eat out, and because of this they are always sure of what they want. And now I can say I share their confidence in my political perspectives due to my new news awareness and motivation to balance my newsfeed because I have accessed arguments from a variety of sources, been exposed to different opinions, and subsequently undergone the deliberative consideration necessary to determine which stances to take based on what sides align with my values.

We don’t have to switch sides or only consume news from one type of source. But taking the steps to understand perspectives from across the spectrum allows us to form insights at a deeper level than otherwise possible. At the very least, a balanced news feed allows one to gain confidence in their own views, thanks to taking the steps to sample the alternatives. You can’t be sure you disagree with someone or a political stance until you truly know what they believe.

Perspectives and Pitfalls: Deliberative Democracy Through a Nietzschean Lens

by

A round table of politicians with a surrounding audience.

Shahin Ahmadi ’24 (DCI Fellow)

In the realm of political philosophy, deliberative democracy has long been hailed as a beacon of reason and good collective decision-making. It posits that rational deliberation among citizens can lead to better, more just decisions. However, when we turn to Friedrich Nietzsche’s unconventional and often controversial philosophy, as laid out in works such as Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, we are met with a provocative critique that challenges some of the foundational principles of deliberative democracy, and in doing so, forces us to confront and contend with some of the challenges of this framework.

One of Nietzsche’s primary critiques is that deliberative democracy may operate under the illusion of rationality. Deliberation presupposes that, through reasoned argument and debate, a group of citizens can arrive at a rational consensus. Nietzsche, however, would argue that such rationality is a façade. His philosophy is grounded in perspectivism, the notion that all knowledge is influenced by individual perspectives and biases. In this light, deliberation may merely serve as a platform for the expression of various wills to power, often masquerading as objective reason.

On top of his skepticism of the alleged rationality of the deliberative practice, Nietzsche’s concern with the manipulation of discourse and language emerges as another point of contention. His critique specifically targets how language and discourse can be wielded as instruments of power, shaping public opinion not through the merit of ideas but through persuasive rhetoric and emotional appeal. In a deliberative democracy, where persuasive argumentation is paramount, the potential for manipulation and the undue influence of eloquent speakers skilled in rhetoric should not be dismissed. This Nietzschean cynicism impels us to question whether the deliberative discourse is truly as bona fide and impartial as it purports to be.

Deliberative democracy’s penchant for consensus and majority rule also comes under Nietzschean scrutiny. Nietzsche coined the term “herd morality” to describe the conventional values and beliefs that emerge from mass culture and democracy. He believed that such morality stifled the greatness of individuals who dared to transcend societal norms. Deliberative democracy, by emphasizing consensus and accommodation, may unwittingly perpetuate this herd morality, suppressing the strength and uniqueness of those who dare to stand outside the mainstream.

A related issue Nietzsche raises is the problem of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ This concept challenges the presumption that majority rule inherently equates to just outcomes. Nietzsche would argue that a decision supported by the majority does not guarantee its moral or ethical superiority. Instead, it risks marginalizing minority voices and perspectives, potentially leading to a conformity that suppresses necessary dissent and diversity. In this way, a majority vote can exert a form of tyranny, prioritizing popularity over principle. Therefore, deliberative democracy, while striving for inclusivity, may inadvertently amplify the dominance of majority opinions, stifling the autonomy and authenticity of minority voices.

Under the Nietzschean lens, deliberative democracy is filled with complexities and inherent paradoxes. Nietzsche’s hammer of philosophical critique, though controversial, forces us to reexamine our assumptions about rational discourse, consensus, and the pursuit of justice, and to contend with the underlying power dynamics and individual desires that shape our political systems. While the deliberative framework offers a hopeful vision of rationality and collective decision-making, Nietzsche prompts us to face the uncomfortable truths about human nature that will inevitably cause the ideal to fall short in practice.

In the end, as we grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to embrace the tension between deliberative democracy’s ideals and Nietzsche’s critiques. Echoing the sentiments from insights like those in Samantha Maldonado’s “Inclusion Around the Cycle,” we should strive for a practical and continuous improvement in representing diverse perspectives while acknowledging the impossibility of perfection in public discourse. This outlook necessitates recognizing and valuing the cyclical nature of deliberation, where each iteration of public engagement is not a failure to reach an unattainable ideal but a step towards a more inclusive, reflective, and dynamic democratic process. By doing so, we aim to strike a balance between the aspirational ideals of deliberative democracy and the pragmatic realism of Nietzschean philosophy.

A Night of Eating Ice Cream and Deliberating GOATs

by

Davidson students in 900 room at 9

On March 12th, Davidson students gathered in the 900 Room at 9:00 to deliberate about the greatest of all time in music, movies, and Davidson life! The event was hosted by the DCI Fellows, and led by Senior Fellows LJ Phillips ’25 and Body Bassett ’25 and Fellows Logan Jain ’26 and Emre Guvenilir ’25.

The event was organized as a competitive deliberative event, and students enjoyed presenting competing arguments about what the best dorms at Davidson are, who the greatest basketball players of all time are, and all manner of similarly lighthearted but contentious topics. There were ice cream sundaes and premium prizes like DCI-themed Stanley cups. All in all the event was a great success, as it introduced students to the practices and principles of deliberation in a fun and engaging atmosphere.

This was the DCI’s second Deliberating GOATs event, and it is quickly becoming a campus tradition. We hope to see you next spring!

Spring 2024 Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Panel & Lunch

by

DeeP Faculty Panel

On Friday, March 15th, faculty from Davidson and beyond gathered to learn from Professors Emily Sydnor (Political Science, Southwestern University), Rachel Pang (Religious Studies, Davidson College), Bassil El-Zaatari (Chemistry, Davidson College), and Anthony Kuchera (Physics, Davidson College) about how to integrate deliberative practices into their classrooms over lunch. The panelists spoke about best practices for hosting deliberations in the classroom, facilitating deliberation, providing feedback, and the improved learning outcomes they found in the courses where they had started to practice deliberative pedagogy.

For example, Professor El-Zaatari encouraged STEM faculty not to shy away from deliberative pedagogy in their courses. And Professor Pang spoke about increased student engagement and how students felt an increased sense of ownership over the course in her deliberative religious studies course. All in all, participants walked away with new knowledge about how to update their teaching practice with deliberative practices.

The event highlighted the work that all four professors did as members of the DCI’s Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative, which is a year-long, paid fellowship program that helps faculty embed deliberation about contentious topics into their courses related to their content. Attendees of the panel and lunch learned about how professors from very different disciplines can update their teaching practice with deliberative practices.

Graham Bullock, Faculty Director of the DCI, moderated the panel and announced that the applications to join the 2024-25 cohort of the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative are now being accepted. Review of applications will begin on April 22 and will continue until all positions are filled. If participating in the Collaborative sounds intriguing to you, learn more and apply to be a Faculty Fellow in next year’s Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative here.

You can learn more about the Collaborative and hear what the panelists had to say yourself by checking out our recording of the panel discussion below…

Commons Conversations Reflection: Discussing Potential U.S. Intervention in Taiwan with Dr. Rigger

by

8.5×11-CC-w-Shelley-Rigger-with-Graphics-1.png

Zoe Moseley ’26 (DCI Fellow)

On Friday February 23rd, ten lucky Davidson students signed up to spend their lunch hour deliberating about international politics. The topic discussed for an hour was the United States’ role in intervening should China take military action in Taiwan. Davidson is lucky to have one of the leading experts on Taiwanese politics, Dr. Shelley Rigger, who was generous enough to answer students’ questions. The conversation began with DCI Fellow Florian Moser setting the expectations of the conversation. He encouraged everyone in the room to introduce themselves before they spoke. This led to participants being able to learn who was in the room, which ranged from students across different fields of study and from each class year. It also allowed students to express why they felt curious about this topic, or why they might have an interesting perspective to share.

Dr. Rigger prompted the conversation by introducing the relationship between Taiwan and China. The first question that came after this was, “Well, what could the U.S. even do?” It was fascinating to see students discuss potential outcomes. We spoke about economic and social consequences. After most people finished eating students had no hesitation to jump in. Two students came in that had interned in Taiwan for a summer, and they recounted stories from their experience. One student said that she was in Taiwan the day Nancy Pelosi visited, and Dr. Rigger and other students who understood the context of her visit laughed.

A few students chose to ask questions to the entire group rather than state their opinion. This led to more fruitful conversation and to some healthy disagreements. The deliberation ended with more questions asked than in the D Teams that I have facilitated, but regardless, Dr. Rigger expressed how much she enjoyed the discussion. And as I was putting away my dishes, I heard students continuing to deliberate after the event was over. It was a great way to launch our first Commons Conversation of the semester – stay tuned for more about our future ones coming soon!