Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

deliberation

How We Can Use Arguments to Learn From One Another

by

People discussing at a round table

Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Arguments are difficult. Whether stemming from our own personal attachments to ideas or a fear of criticism and negative social outcomes, people often tend to stigmatize arguments as impolite, irrational drains on our emotional well-being that only serve to produce tension and animosity between the parties involved. In my own experience, I have faced such feelings of hopelessness, of innately distressing conversations bound to go nowhere. Contentious arguments can give one the feeling they are fighting for the sake of fighting and nothing more. But this does not have to be so. Argument can be one of the most meaningful forms of positive interaction individuals can engage in with one another.

The DCI’s deliberative framework and the constructive norms our Fellows cohort has been exposed to have reconfigured my entire perception of how one ought to engage in argument and what they should hope to get out of it. One of our required readings for the program, Why We Argue (And How We Should) by Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse, details two sweeping norms for augment that I have relied on through my work to improve my relational and facilitator abilities: argumentative earnestness and argumentative responsibility.

Argumentative earnestness and responsibility have allowed me and other practitioners who utilize them to guide arguments away from zero sum competitions aimed at forcing one person to concede entirely to the other side through manipulation and distractions toward a positive, holistic exploration of issues at large and an informative pursuit of truth.

Aikin and Talisse describe argumentative earnestness as our duties to pay close attention to evaluating the reasons placed before us to justify a position or a view. By blocking out the noise–pressures to win, manipulative rhetoric, bias, and distractions–and evaluating arguments based on the reasons and logic behind them, the merit of a point can be more clearly established and progress can be made in what would otherwise be a contentious, stagnant process.

Argumentative earnestness takes what Aikin and Talisse label “intellectual courage,” or the courage to not just focus on the truth when others try to pressure you away from it but to also realize you may be biased and misleading others. It takes intellectual courage to admit that, much like the other side, you too can use flawed arguments in pursuit of winning rather than the truth. Going beyond holding the other side in arguments to such scrutiny by holding yourself to equally high, if not higher standards, can ensure you are constantly improving the quality of the arguments you produce.

Argumentative earnestness on its own is not enough to ensure a successful argument. Looking at the variety of reasons that may go into one side or another regarding a particular topic will round out your arguments to a fuller extent. Looking beyond what may be the widely preferred or most obvious reasons for holding a belief, we find out that there can be many reasons for taking a specific stance on a specific issue.

When we try to empathize with those who might take these different positions, regardless of whether we agree with them or not, it allows us to engage with the other side to the fullest extent possible. When we engage with the full, honest perception we have of the other side’s stance we can either learn and change our own perspectives on an issue or develop more robust responses than we would otherwise be capable of when engaging with simplified reasons. In this way, argumentative responsibility inspires learning and is essential to productive argument.

In my work as a deliberation facilitator, I am sometimes tasked with playing devil’s advocate by taking on the role of the other side when everyone in a deliberation agrees on an issue and the conversation reaches a stand-still. Without engaging in argumentative earnestness and responsibility, it could be very hard to be the sole advocate for another perspective that one sometimes may not even agree with themselves. Embodying these principles in my attempts at being a better devil’s advocate has allowed me to focus on the reasons behind competing stances, encouraging people to examine their views in ways that would not be possible without such a focus on reason over confrontation.

Playing devil’s advocate to urge members of my deliberation groups to consider opposing arguments has been a truly fruitful exercise to watch play out. People not only willingly consider the full scope of reasons behind views they may have otherwise immediately rejected, but they learn how to better respond to such reasons and enhance their reasoning processes. This can allow deliberators to examine their views, thus enhancing their ability to reason through and properly weigh the merit of counterarguments they may face for the stances they take on various issues. It also allows them to build up the courage to admit when they may be wrong or faced with superior reasoning.

In my experience, when we try to exercise argumentative earnestness and responsibility in our efforts to deliberate, we tend to learn more, have better arguments, and have a better chance of unlocking the truth. This allows us to not only be aware of the flaws in the stances we take but to make clear to others in a constructive, rather than hostile way, the problems in the reasoning that they present. Better arguments make better-informed citizens and by leaning into not just argumentation but constructive norms, we learn and grow in ways that would not otherwise be possible. We learn and grow as a community of citizens unified by our pursuit of truth.

Spring 2024 D Teams

by

D-Teams-Spring-2024-8.5×11

This spring the DCI is excited to host its eighth round of D Teams! The focus of the teams’ discussions will be on the three topics of major public concern related to education. Read more below to learn more — Registration for Spring 2024 D Teams is open from January 11th until January 25th, 2024 (Know you want to sign up? Register here.).

What are D Teams?

D Teams are small teams of about 6-10 people that meet three times per semester in order to discuss contentious topics in productive ways, and to pave the way toward catalyzing creative solutions to difficult problems in the public sphere. D Teams may meet in person or virtually.

A few things make the D Team experience unique compared to other discussions about controversial topics. First, D Team discussions are facilitated by a DCI Fellow who has been trained in the kind of facilitation that leads to good discussions. Second, D Team participants get access to deliberation guides designed specifically for each topic that they discuss. And third, D Teams provide an opportunity to connect meaningfully with others beyond one’s immediate social or professional circle. You can learn more about the background and structure of this program here.

It was my first DCI experience, and I was not sure quite what to expect. I was one of 2 non-students on our team, and part of the draw to participate was to hear and learn from current students how they think and feel about such a difficult, complex, politically-charged topic. It was an enlightening and encouraging experience; I came away more hopeful, and impressed by the DCI initiative.

—D Team Participant

What are the topics of discussion for Spring 2024?

The Spring 2024 topics all relate, in one way or another, to the concept of education. D Teams will deliberate about public education and school vouchers, grades and standardized tests, and college admissions.

Education is something we all value to some extent, and yet we disagree about what kinds of education policies should be implemented. We disagree about the purpose of public education, about how to measure the effectiveness of our educational system, and who ought to be admitted to particular educational institutions. And the way we answer these questions depends on our ideas about the general aim of an education, the difference between public and private education, and perhaps even broader questions about justice, equality, and freedom.

In spring 2024, we will therefore be investigating education and its relationship with other values, while paying attention to the particular details each issue below presents. Spring D Team members will have the opportunity to discuss the following questions:

(1) Public Education and School Vouchers: When should parents be granted vouchers to pay for private schools, if ever?

This discussion will first focus on the purpose and function of public education: Why do taxpayer dollars go to support public schools? What are the motivations and expectations associated with this support? Then we will turn to the more specific topic of school vouchers, which enable students to use public money to attend private schools. The use of such vouchers has become increasingly common in recent years, and North Carolina recently expanded their use to allow a broader range of families to make use of them. D Teams will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of vouchers, who they may most benefit and most harm, and under what conditions they should be supported or resisted.  

(2) Grades and Standardized Tests: How should student learning and excellence be assessed and measured, if at all?

Public and private school advocates share a common challenge – identifying to what extent educational institutions are accomplishing the goals they are designed to achieve. Grades and standardized tests are the most common means to measure student and school performance. In this discussion, participants will explore the strengths and limitations of both types of metrics, and they will discuss whether and in what contexts they are most useful and appropriate. They will also deliberate about what assessment policies students, teachers, parents, and policymakers should advocate for in both K-12 and higher education settings. This conversation will both build on the previous discussion about school vouchers and flow into the next one on college admissions.

(3) College Admissions: How should American colleges and universities make admissions decisions in the future?

In the summer of 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision has led colleges and universities across the United States to reconsider how they will determine who is eligible for admission to their institutions. What new or different criteria should they use or weight more strongly given the Court’s prohibition against using race as a factor in admissions? D Teams will address this question by first discussing what the goals of admissions processes should be and then by deliberating about different strategies to achieve those goals. 

Why did we choose these topics?

The DCI solicited feedback on potential topics that were suggested by the DCI Fellows and former D Team participants via a survey that was shared within the Davidson community and the DCI’s online community — our blog and newsletter subscribers and Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter followers. These topics were among the top choices that our survey respondents were interested in discussing, and they are all timely in their own ways. Finally, although the topics are substantively different, they all present an opportunity to engage with pressing public debate about education in America.

I was very grateful to have this kind of opportunity to have these conversations in a context where I knew I shared something with all other participants even though we are in many different stages and paths in life.

—D Team Participant

How do I sign up?

Registration for spring 2024 D Teams is open from January 11th to 25th, 2024. Sign up today and help us build a better democracy, one conversation at a time.

Emotion in Deliberation: A Necessity Rather Than an Impediment

by

Brain and Heart

Atyantika Mookherjee ’27 (DCI Fellow)

It is common to consider emotion as the antithesis of reason and logic. After all, emotions are seen as spontaneous, subjective, and sometimes even irrational, while reason and logic is associated with objectivity and rationality. In public discourse, the interplay of these elements is of prime importance, influencing the course of an argument. Playing into an emotion/reason binary, it is often considered that debate should be centered on facts, leaving no room for the informal fallacy of appealing to emotion. Before joining the DCI as a Fellow, I, too, believed that emotion was a dispensable part of facilitating a productive conversation. However, in learning more about deliberation, I’ve come to recognize the importance of emotion, how it can be effectively communicated through storytelling, and why we should not just “set our feelings aside” when deliberating about public issues.

In his article, “Impassioned Democracy: The Roles of Emotion in Deliberative Theory,” Michael Neblo explores this intersection between emotion and deliberative theory, making the case that despite what many people think, the two are not mutually exclusive. He goes on to outline twelve distinct roles that emotion plays in the process of deliberation. These include contributing to the motivation to deliberate, providing inputs through experiences that harden into critical propositions, and ensuring a reciprocal and empathetic backdrop for the deliberation to occur.

In practice, I see how emotions contribute to better deliberations and agree with many aspects of Neblo’s argument. During the deliberation sessions I hosted as a DCI fellow for Davidson students, alums, and community members, I noted many individuals falling back on personal experiences and how they felt about them in formulating their arguments. Many of their responses to each other were rooted in shared events and outlooks. In retrospect, even my motivation to be part of the DCI comes from my travels to Pakistan as a young Indian girl, seeking to clarify misconceptions both countries have about each other’s communities as I saw them. In this manner, I now understand the role of emotion in deliberation to be critical and be expressed through a medium one would also not commonly associate with deliberation: storytelling.

Stories aim to inspire empathy and provide a deeper, more vibrant understanding of contexts the way facts fail to. Through the use of the Perspectives platform that seeks to encourage individuals to participate in constructive dialogue, I was able to glean more of an understanding of the role of storytelling in deliberation. Stories that are honest, important, and effective play a crucial role in setting the tone for peoples’ opinions and allow deliberators to connect, making for a more fruitful discussion. Naturally, the cornerstone for all such stories is emotion. People remember how an experience made them feel and use this to formulate the values they eventually contemplate during deliberations. They listen to other peoples’ emotions and compare them to their own in reaching their conclusions.

This is not to say that the influence of emotion in deliberation is always straightforward. In certain instances, emotions might sway deliberations towards options that align with immediate gratification or deeply ingrained beliefs, bypassing logical reasoning. Nonetheless, acknowledging and understanding emotions in deliberation can lead to more informed and balanced decision-making. From my own experiences, I’ve realized that successful deliberation often involves integrating emotional intelligence with rationality. This integration allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of choices, considering both the logical implications and the emotional resonance of decisions. In collaborative deliberative processes, recognizing and respecting diverse emotional responses among participants can lead to more inclusive and nuanced outcomes.

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 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.