Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

facilitation

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

by

AI image of people deliberating at a table

Logan Jain ’26 (DCI Fellow)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: The image above was generated by ChatGPT4.

The Power of Deliberation: Embracing New Ideas

by

DCI Fellow Florian Moser facilitating a deliberation

Florian Moser ’26 (DCI Fellow)

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

Confrontational vs. Collaborative: Debates and Deliberation

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

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

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

Here, I want to list some critical soft skills:

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

The Benefits of Deliberation

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

Conclusion

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

Why Argue?

by

DCI Fellow Monty Krakovitz facilitating a deliberation

Monty Krakovitz ’25 (DCI Fellow)

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCI’s Fall 2023 Deliberative Forum Recap & Recording: The Challenge for Democracy

by

On Thursday, October 19, the DCI hosted its 9th public Deliberative Forum, The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy Around the World?  For this event, we partnered with Davidson’s own Political Science Department and featured speakers with different global areas of specialization. Professors Bes Ceka, Shelley Rigger, and Ken Menkhaus presented their own views about democracy promotion and defense and focused on Europe, Asia, and Africa (respectively). We invite you to watch the recording of our panel below!

The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy

panel

Our Deliberative Forum didn’t end with the panel. After the panel discussion, 96 participants engaged with one another in small-group deliberations facilitated by the DCI’s Fellows, Senior Fellows, and others who have gone through our Deliberation Facilitator Training Program, including a few Davidson faculty members. We had a total of 18 small groups deliberating about the topic both online and in-person, drawing on our Deliberation Guide written for the event and engaging with one another on the forum’s central question.

Check out some photos and the short video of these discussions below.

Want to make sure you don’t miss our next forum? Follow us on your favorite social media site and subscribe below for DCI updates!

Panel at DCI Forum
The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and Political Science Department Event – The Challenge for Democracy

The Benefits of Deliberation in Sports and Daily Life

by

Davidson Women's Basketball Team huddled for a breakdown.

By Peyton Carter ’23 (DCI Fellow)

This semester for the DCI, a lot of focus and time has been spent on figuring out what each of us fellows will do for our personal Deliberation Projects. The goal of these Deliberation Projects is to “enable Fellows to organize, host, and facilitate a deliberative event that connects to their personal interests…and builds Fellows’ capacity to conduct deliberative activities after they have completed the DCI Fellowship program.” After hearing this objective, it did not take long for me to figure out what personal interest I wanted to connect the DCI with – sports.

Sports, specifically basketball, have been a major part of my life from the age of 6 up until now at 22 years old. I have been on plenty of different teams with different coaches through these years, which has resulted in me experiencing a lot of different team dynamics. When I sat down to think about how deliberation and these past basketball team experiences could connect, it seemed clear. Teams get into heated debates and arguments all the time.

It is only natural when you have a large group of people giving their best competitive efforts to work toward a common goal that not everyone will agree on how it should be done. Tensions are bound to arise, and disagreements break out. My idea was that if deliberation is something that becomes incorporated into sports and teams, it would help to resolve many issues that tend to fester both on and off the court (or the field) for the duration of a season.

Ultimately, I decided to go to different sports teams on Davidson’s campus and speak to them about what deliberation is, and how it can be used on their teams to create a respectful environment where issues can be talked about in a respectful manner and resolved, instead of just letting them linger and fester. This decision, however, has also made me think about the benefits of deliberation in all areas of life, beyond sports, and beyond only D Teams and Deliberative Forums.

Deliberation can be used on so many occasions. If we think about it, we probably deliberate every day, although perhaps not always that productively. It may just be a small conversation in passing or a 10-minute “battle” on what the greatest television show of all time is. Just like people, deliberation comes in all shapes and sizes. My hope after completing the plan for my project is that people all over will begin to learn what it means to deliberate, and deliberate well, when it is appropriate. In our world today, much conversation that involves two people on opposing sides produces a disagreement, which then results in an unproductive argument.

People tend to value the positives and respectfulness of deliberation in their daily lives more and more often now than ever before. In our last DCI forum about social media and how we should be dealing with it, the members of my deliberation group during the second part of the event echoed these sentiments. In our group, there were two students, including myself, and three adults who each had children around my age.

As we were wrapping up our discussion, they told me and the other student how special this conversation was and how grateful they were to be there. Above all, they were just happy and relieved to be able to disagree with someone about a topic and not break out into a fight with them, but instead have just a simple conversation. No one was trying to win or make sure that they had the last and loudest word. They each said they miss when they used to be able to do this all the time with people many years ago, but not any longer – until coming to the forum and deliberating with us, together.