Deliberative Civic Culture: Assessing the Prevalence of Deliberative Conversational Norms

Abstract

Citizens’ adherence to deliberative civic values fulfils a vital function in deliberative democratic systems. We propose a way to measure the prevalence and variations of such values as a first step to better understanding how this works. Based on survey data, we demonstrate that, in Sweden, adherence to the values of reasoning and listening is stronger than adherence to the strategic rhetorical, non-deliberative values. This may have important implications for our understanding of how deliberation and democracy work in this particular context. There are also, however, important individual-level variations of adherence to deliberative civic values related to age, education, gender and Swedish background. Taken together, this opens up for a new research agenda where comparative analyses of deliberative civic values and how it relates to political behaviour are particularly encouraged.

Guardians of Democracy? On the Response of Civil Society Organisations to Right‐Wing Extremism

“…The reasoning behind the types of responses varies. One interpretation is that it can be understood from the context of the Swedish political culture, which is characterised by deliberation and consensus, and where the use of violent street protests and more contentious forms of politics is relatively rare (Trägårdh 2007; Wennerhag 2017; Jennstål et al 2020). At the same time, the findings from Ludvika tally well with the study by Pedahzur (2003, 71) on how CSOs responded to right‐wing extremism in Brandenburg in Germany: there, CSOs responded by educating and strengthening citizens' democratic values, and by organising community activities intended to strengthen democracy.…”

“…Sweden is often referred to as a country with an active and well‐organised civil society, with civilians taking an active role in political life. Sweden is also described as having a political culture marked by deliberation and consensus, where political conflicts are expected to be settled around the negotiation table, and where violent street protests and more contentious forms of politics are relatively rare (Trägårdh 2007; Wennerhag 2017; Jennstål et al 2020). However, while criticism of public authorities is deeply rooted in the ‘culture of advocacy’ of civil society in Sweden (Arvidson et al 2018), how organisations respond to violent and destructive elements within civil society is relatively unknown.…”

Highlighting Incivility: How the News Media’s Focus on Political Incivility Affects Political Trust and News Credibility

“…Political incivility in discussions and in the news would harm that (Rohlinger, 2007;Wessler, 2008;Wessler & Rinke, 2014). Interestingly, and importantly, citizens generally share this norm for civility in political discussion and there are also indications that they share the norm for civility in news reporting (Jennstål et al, 2020;Mutz & Reeves, 2005;Prochazka et al, 2018). Since both political trust and news credibility depend on citizens' normative expectations, these outcomes are expected to decline when citizens are exposed to incivility-focused news coverage.…”

Linking Extraversion to Collective and Individual Forms of Political Participation: The Mediating Role of Political Discussion

“…As political participation is at the heart of democracy, understanding what makes people engage in politics is a key issue for political scientists and communication scholars alike (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). In the related literature, there is an ongoing scholarly debate on the role of personality traits as determinants of political and prosocial behavior (Cooper, Golden, and Socha, 2013;Bloeser et al, 2015;Dinesen, Nørgaard, and Klemmensen, 2014;Jennstål, Uba, and Öberg, 2020;Kline et al, 2019;Lindell and Strandberg, 2018;Margetts et al, 2015;Rasmussen and Hebbelstrup, 2016). These effects have been studied at different geographic contexts, including the Netherlands (Bekkers, 2005), Finland (Mattila et al, 2011), Venezuela and Uruguay (Mondak et al, 2011), South Korea (Ha, Kim, and Jo, 2013), India and Pakistan (Oskarsson and Widmalm, 2016), Italy (Caprara et al, 2006), and Germany (Schoen and Steinbrecher, 2013).…”