facilitation

By Mae Corley ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Without knowing about the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I took Dr. Bullock’s American Politics class last spring. An important component of our class was participation in Deliberation Teams hosted by DCI. With the intention to learn about deliberative democracy, I joined my first group on a Sunday afternoon.  

As usual, our D Team group began with introductions. We were called to express several points of our identity that might have influenced how we think or what we believe. As always, I stressed my hometown, Seattle, as the primary contributor to my opinions and beliefs. Coming to Davidson, I was reaching outside of my comfort zone in, perhaps, more ways than I realized. Not only does the state of North Carolina lean in a different direction politically, but there are many unspoken social norms and behaviors that I have found to be different and foreign to me. 

In some sense, I miss the Pacific Northwest. It is beautiful, comfortable, and breeds its own type of person. Yet, I came to Davidson to find people unlike myself who could shape me into a well-rounded, liberal-arts-inspired adult. I wanted to be introduced to others who don’t share a similar identity produced from a Seattle upbringing.  

While, obviously, there is much more to a D Team than introductions, I still find myself fascinated by how each person in the conversation chooses to introduce themselves. When I was a participant last year, I liked to reference each other person’s introduction when I heard their opinions and thoughts during our deliberation. How did the identity factors they chose to share correspond with the opinions they hold and what they could bring to the discussion? What did they choose to focus on when they spoke and added to our deliberation? Conversely, as a facilitator this year, how can I understand each person who has chosen to participate in my deliberation? What ultimately brought them to the discussion?  

Deliberative democracy fundamentally calls for citizens to engage in discussions to understand each other, see other sides of issues, and gather a holistic perspective. While sharing identities may seem like one of the simpler parts of a D Team discussion, I believe it is the most important. Deliberative dialogue encourages participants to recognize the identities and perspectives inside of the conversation, as well as those left out and missing. By understanding the perspectives, opinions, and identities of each person in a D Team, we can create a productive deliberation in a small, intimate setting. 

Through my experience as a participant and a facilitator, I have interacted with many people – most of them connected through Davidson somehow – who offer countless different experiences, identities, and perspectives. I have been excited to find where people find agreement and disagreement and how that can relate to their identities. Deliberation is important to me because I can understand my past – a Seattle upbringing fueled by the outdoors, rainy winters, and Pacific Northwest attitudes – as it can relate to my present.  

Now, as a facilitator and participant of deliberative dialogues, I can see where my opinion, perspectives, and ideas originate from. I have also learned to appreciate where others are coming from, heard new ideas, and formed connections with people very different from myself. I believe that conversations with people different than you are essential, and, as always, they start with those easily overlooked but critically important introductions. 

Photo above is by Travis Wise and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

           

By Daniel Lee ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Happiness is a timeless virtue that colors the human condition. It is powerful, bringing light into the darkness and hope to the meek. Our fondest memories are often accompanied by this emotion, which comes back alive in reminiscence and nostalgia. And perhaps it is the presence of happiness itself—whether large or small—that allows us to march on past the burdens of a broken world.

There are, arguably, two distinct forms of happiness: private and public. Private happiness is found within the comfort of one’s private life, without interaction with other individuals. For example, one might achieve private happiness through the independent indulgence of food, entertainment, or physical activity. The duration of happiness created out of these activities tends to be short and temporary, leaving individuals unsatisfied in the aftermath.

Public happiness, on the other hand, is found exclusively by interacting with other individuals. The etymology of “happiness” is critical in understanding this phenomenon. The word originates from happ (Old Norse for chance or luck) and -ness (the state of being). Together, it signifies the state of being encompassed by chance and luck. So how does this apply to the creation of public happiness, and how does one go about bringing it to life?

The answer to that question can be found in the art of public discourse and deliberation. When individuals gather to hold a genuine conversation, void of preconceived scripts or narratives, the potential and possibility of the conversation are limitless, led by the force of spontaneity and chance. The contribution of one individual’s ideas will prompt others to react and contribute their own thoughts by chance, leading to the creation of something new. More often than not, this creation of something new is the birth of public happiness, brought forth into existence out of meaningful and exciting interactions between people.

This pursuit of public happiness is what I believe to be at the core of the DCI’s mission. In a world plagued by the impasse of ideological polarization and serious mental health crises, we need to work actively to bring back the virtue of public happiness into our communities. Whether the DCI deliberation model is implemented in local coffee shops or at large academic conferences, each step is crucial in ensuring a path forward. Without this important work, I am afraid that future generations of humanity may forgo ever experiencing public happiness altogether.

Although the present circumstances may seem dim, hope dances with my every heartbeat because of the meaningful interactions I have experienced through DCI this semester. Working with the DCI Fellows, D Team participants, and Dr. Bullock has helped restore my faith in our ability to move past the self-centered narrative and rather pursue great conversations created out of a bridge of respect and humility. And yes, much work is still left to be done. However, insofar as the possibility exists, the pursuit of public happiness is worth the struggle toward a better and healthier democracy.

By LJ Phillips (DCI Fellow)

According to celebrity chef James Beard, “Food is our common ground, a universal experience.” Food always has a unique way of bringing people together. The most prominent conversations or interactions that I can remember in my life almost always involved food in some fashion. The act of eating with another person or persons makes people more sociable. We are less on-edge and are more vulnerable to one another when we share a meal.

I found this realization to be even more supported by the first Commons Conversation this semester. As a facilitator, I found it difficult at first to find people who wanted to engage in a deliberation during their lunch. People did not seem to want to spend their lunch time deliberating in the beginning but decided otherwise once we started to deliberate.

Our deliberative topic was about mental health. It is a sensitive topic for some but eating together eased the tensions throughout the table and you could visibly tell that people are not only comfortable but eager to speak to one another.

I wonder about that change in tone and mood from previous deliberations. As conversation went on people seamlessly felt accepted and were glad to share their personal opinions on the topic. This was the effect of deliberating in a less stressful environment under serene circumstances.

With regards to the actual conversation we had, it went well and the crosstalk and conversation among deliberators was orderly and coherent. The easy-going and well-meant nature of the discussion made my job as a facilitator more enjoyable and pleasant. Interruptions were not needed by me because the subsequent group respected each other despite their differences and lack of knowledge of each other.

I think the reason for such cordiality was that we were dining with one another. We can all relate in that we not only need food as humans but desire it. Eating with another person has shown to be a great way to ease tension and be more relational with someone. Whether you are eating at Vail Commons, Davis Cafe, or Zaxby’s, the personal act of sharing a dining experience brings comfort and familiarity even when it wasn’t present before.

As our deliberation continued, people also became better listeners ironically. Naturally, most would assume that when we eat and converse we become worse listeners because eating takes some of the attention away from the conversation. However, this did not happen; everyone listened intently to each person’s perspective.

What I saw that Friday in Vail Commons was an intentional, genuine conversation about a delicate matter such as mental health. It was an experience that was elevated by the act of eating lunch with other people. It really makes you ponder about how much our surroundings have on our mood and attitude toward speaking to people. Food has a positive impact on our interactions with one another. If we have more conversations where people are in comfortable settings, better and more productive deliberations will occur.

Deliberation, as defined by Longo and Shaffer in their work “Discussing Democracy,” is a process in which a diverse set of individuals convene and move towards making a collective decision on a contentious issue. Deliberation has the power to change the discourse in our country, away from the harmful rhetoric currently used and towards open dialogue, where everyone’s opinions on every facet of the political spectrum are heard and understood.

 While issues such as race, abortion, religion, and more have always carried a certain weight and importance within American society, throughout the past several years these issues have become more and more relevant in everyday American lives. It has culminated to a point where it is almost taboo to even mention any of the previously named topics. This is where I see the greatest potential of deliberation. It allows us to pry open issues such as race and abortion, open them to dialogue, and begin the process of understanding or at a minimum hearing the other side. 

Contentious issues, such as race, abortion, and religion, are like a powder keg. They are issues that are real, extremely prevalent, and are not going away; and by ignoring them we are simply adding powder to the keg, making the explosion of these issues worse and worse. We saw a preview of this dynamic during the summer protests of 2020 where millions of dollars worth of public and private property were destroyed nationwide. The result of negligence towards these issues is all too clear; a different approach must be taken. Deliberation and its advantages offer that opportunity.

Through my 10+ hours of facilitator training and readings, such as Longo and Shaffer’s “Discussing Democracy,” I’ve already been able to comprehend opposing viewpoints at a level I was unable to beforehand. For example, when deliberating whether to teach critical race theory (CRT) in the classrooms I was presented with a viewpoint I had yet to consider. This was the idea that while CRT is a must-teach topic, it is too complex for youth to understand. This raised the question in my mind of when and how to introduce CRT to our youth and allowed me to understand CRT, not only as a way to learn about race, but instead, view it also as a way to help young people connect with each other and understand, accept and celebrate our differences.

This broadening of my understanding is a small example of the power deliberation holds. A better example is Xernona Clayton, the civil rights legend who befriended a KKK leader and changed his mind. Xernona Clayton was leading the Model Cities Program, a federally funded program to end urban poverty, and despite the strong presence of the KKK, began to drop by Calvin Craig’s Atlanta office in an attempt to befriend him. Appealing to his Christian beliefs, Xernona would teach Clayton to change his use of words, understand the concept of black suffrage, and open his mind to desegregation.

---