The Forms of Deliberative Communication

Abstract

As deliberative democratic theory has moved from a macro theory of democratic legitimacy to prescriptions for institutional design, questions about what constitutes deliberative communication have taken on increasing practical importance. At the same time, empirical data has accumulated to answer those questions. We review findings on the kinds of talk that produce either mutually-agreed upon decisions or better understanding of the issues at stake, equality among speakers, and impacts on policies or participants after the forum is over. Deliberative talk in facilitated settings today does not resemble the abstract, dispassionate reason-giving imagined by many theorists of deliberation. However, precisely for that reason, deliberative talk today is producing some of the benefits claimed for it.

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

“…Earlier deliberative scholars, despite following distinct traditions, place the exchange of reasons at the core of deliberation. In subsequent debates on what type of communication is needed for deliberation (Young, 2000;Gabardi, 2001;Mouffe, 2005), a number of scholars have developed a more pluralistic approach to reasoned discussion, by acknowledging the merits of rhetoric, storytelling, performances, and humour that can lead to deliberation (Dryzek, 2000;Bächtiger et al, 2010;Dryzek and Hendriks, 2012;Mansbridge et al, 2012;Neblo, 2015;Polletta and Gardner, 2018). We place ourselves in line with those who argue that rational discussion is compatible with emotions and personal stories (Goodin, 2005;Ulbert and Risse, 2005;Thompson, 2008;Bächtiger et al, 2010;Steiner, 2012;Maia and Hauber, 2019).…”

“…The studies of Elster (1998) and Steiner et al (2004) showed that political representatives tend to make more references to the common good when speaking in public than in discussions behind closed doors; and, therefore, report to the general public and advance proposals that might appear to be good for all, and not just for the speaker. Conversely, citizens frequently engage in discussions to discover adversarial positions in informal forums and they benefit from listening and learning from each other without expecting to exert influence on political decisions (Steiner, 2012;Bächtiger and Gerber, 2014;Gerber et al, 2016;Polletta and Gardner, 2018). Typically, ordinary people do not have the common good in mind when they express their arguments (Himmelroos, 2017).…”

“…While these types of speakers are usually invested with the authority to analyze, synthesize, and recommend remedies for social conflicts in forums (Karpowitz and Raphael, 2014;Quirk et al, 2018), ordinary citizens respond with their own reasons, often making references on their values, interests, and subjective experiences to explain problems and possible solutions (Karpowitz and Mansbridge, 2005;Carson et al, 2013;Gerber et al, 2016). Ordinary citizens invoke their own stories and experiences to make sense of the problem and how they see it affecting them (Polletta and Lee, 2006;Black and Lubensky, 2013;Maia, 2014;Gerber et al, 2016;Sprain and Black, 2017;Polletta and Gardner, 2018). In the face of these considerations, we hypothesize that:…”

“…as to facilitate consciousness-raising (Young, 2000;Maia, 2012Maia, , 2014Maia and Garcêz, 2014;Johnson et al, 2017). When searching for solutions, people can also vocalize stories as to identify otherwise obscure causal mechanisms or reveal the moral complexity of certain problems, particularly when rights are not assured or specific policies are unavailable (Steiner, 2012;Maia, 2014;Polletta and Gardner, 2018). Still, storytelling can serve to deviate the focus from a discussion or exert coercion.…”

“…The functions of storytelling were built by surveying theoretical and empirical studies on storytelling (Polletta and Lee, 2006;Black, 2008;Black and Lubensky, 2013;Johnson et al, 2017;Polletta and Gardner, 2018) and by reading our research material. The following functions were coded: (a) clarification; (b) disclosure of harm; (c) search for solutions; (d) off topic (see Table 6).…”