Authority and Deliberative Moments: Assessing Equality and Inequality in Deeply Divided Groups

Abstract

The notion of equality is central to public deliberation, but few researches have examined how participants construct interactions in face-to-face group discussion involving unequal conditions of authority. This study analyses discussion between slum residents and police officers in Brazil, focusing on both reciprocal and hierarchical relationships in the flow of deliberation. It contributes to explain that the expression of authority is far from straightforward. Looking at a range of authority sources (expertise, functional position, tradition, life experience) that serve to situate and re-situate participants in relation to each other in discussion dynamics helps clarifying what goes on in deliberative moments. Findings reveal that personal experiences prevail in deliberative moments whereas functional credentials predominate in non-deliberative ones. Yet, the case demonstrates that functional authority is not necessarily dominative but can be combined with certain behaviors (such as empathetic imagination, search for commonalities and self-criticism) that lead to reciprocal interactions. This study provides important insights for organizing deliberation more effectively in contexts of fear, mistrust and resentment.

The Democratic Value of Strategic Game Reporting and Uncivil Talk: A Computational Analysis of Facebook Conversations During U.S. Primary Debates

“…In this paper we argue that, while incivility is not an integral dimension of deliberation and acknowledge that some forms of toxicity are harmful to political discourse, it can coexist with some dimensions of quality discussion. These kinds of “deliberative moments” (Chen, 2017; Maia et al, 2017) are especially evident when people who may not have equal power relations engage in productive discourse. They cover the “sweet spot that is not so nasty that it makes rational speech impossible but not so polite that it prohibits disagreement or discord” (Chen, 2017, p. 177).…”

Which types of reason-giving and storytelling are good for deliberation? Assessing the discussion dynamics in legislative and citizen forums

“…Sprain and Black (2017: 11) have likewise searched for 'deliberative moments', by identifying the co-occurrence of three elements in the communicative interactionnamely, reason exchange; attentive listening or respect; and inclusion, defined as 'an orientation to recognizing other perspectives about an issue'. There is little empirical work on distinctive moments of political discussion offering specific inferences beyond aggregate level data (Black, 2008;Maia et al, 2017;Sprain and Black, 2017;Steiner et al, 2017). That said, we suspect that the structure of reasons as well as storytelling will be different in moments of high-quality and low-quality deliberation.…”

“…The speakers may extensively justify their positions but they might be just lecturing, reporting, or commanding, rather than reasoning together (Laden, 2012). Clever speakers might use unnecessarily complex argumentation and elaborate assertions, but intentionally leave the argument vague or unclear (Bächtiger et al, 2010;Maia et al, 2017). Thus, it is plausible to expect that mechanisms ensuring tangible evidences for one's claims and clearer connections between premises and conclusions will emerge in good moments of deliberation, in contrast to those in bad moments.…”