Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

democracy

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.

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!

Bridging Divides and Overcoming Polarization: The Power of Deliberative Practice

by

People of different races holding hands in a circle

Flo Moser ’26 (DCI Fellow)

On Friday, January 19, the Deliberative Citizenship organized a Semester Kickoff Party to start the semester by engaging in deliberative practice. In addition to the table with the pizzas and drinks, many tables were assigned to different subject areas. For example, there were tables on international topics, economics, American politics, technology, etc. On each table, there were cards with conversation topics, which were then discussed by the participants under the guidance of the deliberative facilitators. For instance, one card from the economics table asked whether the minimum wage should be lower or higher. Usually, topics like this are said to polarize and divide society. On this day, however, they brought people together.

In today’s increasingly polarized society, finding common ground and fostering understanding between opposing viewpoints has become a formidable challenge. The social media echo chambers and the divisive rhetoric in public discourse often lead to a widening gap between individuals and groups. However, there is a powerful tool that has the potential to mend these fractures and build bridges of understanding: deliberative practice.

Polarization in society arises from the deepening divisions between individuals with differing opinions, values, and beliefs. This phenomenon is fueled by a need for more meaningful communication and a growing unwillingness to engage with perspectives that differ from our own. In such an environment, breaking down these barriers and creating spaces for constructive dialogue is crucial.

Deliberative practice involves intentionally and thoughtfully discussing issues among individuals with diverse perspectives. It goes beyond mere debate, emphasizing active listening, respectful engagement, and a commitment to finding common ground. This process encourages participants to examine their beliefs and critically understand the nuances of opposing viewpoints.

One of the critical elements of deliberative practice is the art of listening. In a society where people are often quick to express their opinions without truly hearing others, fostering a culture of active listening is transformative. When individuals are willing to listen, they open themselves to understanding the motivations, fears, and aspirations underlying diverse perspectives. This empathetic approach is a cornerstone of overcoming polarization.

Deliberation practice taps into a fundamental human desire—the urge to be part of the solution. Many people are growing weary of the toxic environment created by polarization and yearn for constructive ways to contribute to positive change. Deliberation provides an avenue for individuals to actively engage in shaping solutions rather than perpetuating the cycle of division.

One of the main drivers of polarization is confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. Deliberative practices encourage participants to confront and challenge their biases by exposing them to alternative viewpoints. This process helps individuals move beyond their comfort zones and fosters a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

In a world marked by polarization, deliberation emerges as a powerful antidote. By promoting active listening, a commitment to understanding diverse perspectives, and a shared sense of responsibility for solutions, deliberation can bridge divides and cultivate a culture of unity. As the many participants at the DCI Kickoff Party showed, people are willing to listen to others’ opinions, even on the most polarized topics, because they strive to be part of the solution. This urge we have to be part of the solution, combined with a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue, can create a more harmonious and inclusive society. As we embrace deliberation, we take a significant step towards healing the fractures in our communities and building a future grounded in understanding and collaboration.

DCI Spring Semester Kickoff Party

A Deliberative Forum on Guns in America

by

Join us for an opportunity to learn about and discuss one of the most challenging topics in American politics

Gun-Forum-Final-11×17-1

Can we talk about one of the most contentious and challenging topics in American politics? One that touches on some of our most basic concerns and aspirations about life in a free society? The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, Center for Political Engagement, and Political Science Department believe we can and we must at least try to do so, with as much compassion, curiosity, and courage as possible, and in the hope that we will come to a greater understanding and create the foundation for sustained progress on this issue.

We therefore cordially invite you to join us for a Deliberative Forum on Guns in America: How Should We Balance Concerns about Gun Rights and Gun Risks? It is being held on Tuesday, April 2 from 7 pm to 9 pm in the Lilly Gallery and online. Sign up to attend the forum through this link — we have extended the deadline from March 28 to March 31. Virtual and in-person registration options are available. We hope you can join us!

  • The Forum will begin with a panel of advocates and experts with different views on this topic who will explore their areas of agreement and disagreement about the costs and benefits of different approaches to gun rights, gun regulations, and gun violence. 
  • Panelists include Shannon Klug (Former Air Force Colonel with Moms Demand Action, Be SMART, and Everytown Veterans Advisory Council), Philip Smith (President of the National African Americans Gun Association), Ray Nothstine (Future of Freedom Fellow and Senior Editor at a non-profit focusing on state level policy and former Second Amendment Research Fellow at the John Locke Foundation), and Dominic Erdozain (Research Fellow at Emory University and author of One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts our History and Threatens our Democracy). Learn more about them in their bios below.
  • The panel will be moderated by Dan Aldridge, Professor of History, Chair of Africana Studies, and a former DCI Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Fellow. 
  • Following the panel discussion, both online and in-person forum attendees will have the opportunity to deliberate about the topic among themselves, guided by the DCI’s trained facilitators.

Panelist Bios

Shannon Klug works with Moms Demand Action, a part of Everytown for Gun Safety, and is the Charlotte Co-Lead for Be SMART, an organization that advocates for secure gun storage to save children’s lives. She is also a gun owner and retired Air Force Colonel, and she is a member of the Everytown Veterans Advisory Council. Klug has written numerous op-eds in the Charlotte Observer, Stars and Stripes, and elsewhere about the importance of reducing gun violence and improving gun safety.

Philip Smith, a graduate of the University of California at Davis, is the president and founder of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA). The National African American Gun Association is an organization that promotes gun ownership rights among African Americans in the United States. Founded in 2015, it has over 34,000 members (60% of whom are African American women), more than 75 chapters in the United States, and has grown significantly in reaction to black deaths. 

Ray Nothstine is a Future of Freedom Fellow and senior editor and writer for a non-profit focusing on state-level policy. He previously worked as opinion editor at Carolina Journal and as a Second Amendment research fellow at the John Locke Foundation. Nothstine served for over seven years as managing editor of Religion & Liberty, a publication of the Acton Institute. He has written numerous articles advocating for gun rights and fewer gun regulations in The Carolina Journal, Salisbury Post, The Anson Record, and elsewhere. 

Dominic Erdozain is a writer and historian with a passion for bringing the past into dialogue with the present. A graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, he is currently a Research Fellow at Emory University. In his book, One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts our History and Threatens our Democracy, published by Random House in 2024, Erdozain places America’s gun problem in a broader philosophical and historical context and argues that we have wrongly ceded the big-picture argument on guns.

Moderator Bio

Dr. Dan Aldridge will serve as the moderator of the panel. Dr. Aldridge is Professor of History and Chair of Africana Studies at Davidson College. He has also participated as a Faculty Fellow in the DCI’s Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative. Dr. Aldridge has served as a public defender in Los Angeles and written extensively about the history of the African American civil rights movement. He received his PhD from Emory University, his JD from Northwestern University, and his BA from Michigan State University.

Register Here by March 28