The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse

Abstract

Political dialogue among citizens offers numerous potential contributions to American politics, but attainment of these benefits hinges largely on the extent to which conversations cross lines of political difference. In what contexts are cross‐cutting interactions most likely to thrive? Using data from five surveys, we find consistent evidence that the workplace is the social context best positioned to facilitate cross‐cutting political discourse. Political discussion in the workplace involves a large number of discussants, and it involves greater exposure to people of dissimilar perspectives than does discussion in contexts such as the family, the neighborhood, or the voluntary association. We next consider whether workplace‐based interactions are capable of producing beneficial effects. Despite the notoriously weak nature of work‐based social ties, we find evidence that workplace‐based exposure to differing political views increases people's knowledge of rationales for political perspectives other than their own and also fosters political tolerance.

The Coevolution of Networks and Political Attitudes

“…They also suggest that persuasion is not simply a reflection of opinion leadership, with contagion following expertise (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), although a direct examination is not possible in the absence of measures of expertise in this population. The finding regarding social ties is of special importance, given research that suggests that a disproportionate share of discordant political communication occurs in the workplace (Mutz & Mondak, 2006). These results suggest that these workplace ties may result in relatively little persuasion.…”

“…Homophily notwithstanding, however, we know that our networks of political discussants are only imperfectly like us (Huckfeldt et al, 2002;Mutz, 2002), which, in turn, creates the possibility of social influence. 3 In reality, the opportunity structure for forming relationships is often sharply constrained, as, for example, Mutz and Mondak (2006) explored empirically in the context of political interactions in the workplace.…”

The Solaria Syndrome: Social Capital in a Growing Hyper-Technological Economy

“…Even when material consumption is patently unable to satisfy social needs, it can at least compensate for the deprivation of human relations: for example, agents may comfort themselves for the lack of a bowling team by playing a virtual match against a computer. Following interesting hints from political science, we also assume that on the job interaction contributes to the creation of durable ties thereby influencing the time evolution of social capital (Karasek, 1976, Greenberg, 1986, Mutz and Mondak, 2006, Adman, 2008. In such a theoretical framework, we introduce an exogenous technical progress affecting the productivity of both the private and the relational spheres of the economy.…”

Impactos da rede e contexto social para uma decisão de qualidade : o voto correto

“…Em contrapartida, outros estudos empíricos demonstram que redes sociais aumentam as chances de ambivalência e consequentemente diminui a participação política (Mutz 2002b;Mutz 2006). As conclusões divergentes para a mesma unidade de análise -influência social -pode ser originada pela forma com que os pesquisadores mensuram esta variável.…”

“…Mutz e Manin (2001) assinalam que existe baixo conflito nas sociedades contemporâneas porque a tendência dos cidadãos é cultivar relações homogêneas, evitando a exposição de opiniões conflituosas e a desarmonia nos relacionamentos. Assim, o nível de deliberação nas sociedades contemporâneas é decrescente (Mutz, 2006;Putnam, 2000).…”