2009
DOI: 10.1177/1532673x09332790
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are Diverse Political Networks Always Bad for Participatory Democracy?

Abstract: Political discussions within interpersonal networks not only help communicate political information that is otherwise too costly to obtain, but they also expose people to political views that are not necessarily congruent to their own predispositions. In exploring consequences of exposure to political disagreements, existing literature finds an interesting dilemma: Although political disagreements contribute to the deliberative democracy by encouraging greater awareness of rationales for opposing views as well… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Teach them to disagree with ideas, laws, or policies, and not people; by making sound logical arguments supported by evidence and a commitment to facts, students can engage in meaningful political debates without attacking people. Political disagreements are healthy in a democracy and do not discourage political participation (Jang 2009); yet, it is critical that students learn not to demonize people because they hold diametrically opposed values, beliefs, or attitudes about emotional topics. Name calling, hostility, anger, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension are not substitutes for calm, rational, and civil discourse that values knowledge.…”
Section: Civility: a Moral Virtue Obtained Through Education And Pracmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teach them to disagree with ideas, laws, or policies, and not people; by making sound logical arguments supported by evidence and a commitment to facts, students can engage in meaningful political debates without attacking people. Political disagreements are healthy in a democracy and do not discourage political participation (Jang 2009); yet, it is critical that students learn not to demonize people because they hold diametrically opposed values, beliefs, or attitudes about emotional topics. Name calling, hostility, anger, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension are not substitutes for calm, rational, and civil discourse that values knowledge.…”
Section: Civility: a Moral Virtue Obtained Through Education And Pracmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because individuals can respond to disagreement in different ways, simply asking individuals to self-report how much satisfaction they actually experience within a discussion will not properly assess whether the discussion measured up to deliberative democracy's normative ideals, since participants might subjectively prefer conflict-free or conflict-driven non-deliberative institutions (Jang, 2009;McClurg, 2006;Nir, 2005). Well-functioning deliberation should instead induce a disagreement-curious response in participants, and so to match normative ideals, participants should express the highest satisfaction when discussion among participants engenders reasonable disagreement, when compared to no disagreement or intractable disagreement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, Mutz (2002, 2006) finds that more disagreement in communication networks leads to lower turnout. Jang (2009) presents similar results indicating that, generally speaking, citizens who are located in opposed communication networks turn out less often. In between these two positions, Pattie and Johnston (2009) find a negative effect of network disagreement on actual turnout, but not on self‐reported turnout.…”
Section: Political Disagreement In Communication Networkmentioning
confidence: 64%