Why Inequalities Persist in Public Deliberation: Five Mechanisms of Marginalization

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that reflective “meta-deliberation,” or discussions about how discussions proceed, can help to address patterns of marginalization. This article suggests, however, that moving to a meta level is not in itself a solution, since it may easily bring along such patterns. Inequalities persist through specific mechanisms that may be present in both ordinary deliberation and meta-deliberation. We explore such mechanisms empirically, by focusing on experiences of people that were excluded from discussions to which they were uniquely qualified to contribute. Our case is the 2013 Stockholm riots, and our interviewees are people who live, work, and engage in local civil society groups in the affected neighborhoods. These interviews helped us identify five mechanisms that affect a society’s capacity for reflective uptake in both ordinary deliberation and meta-deliberation: (1) imposition of preexisting narratives, (2) inclusion of locally dominant actors, (3) discursive distancing, (4), reliance on social markers, and (5) paternalistic conflict avoidance.

Interruptive protests in dysfunctional deliberative systems

“…Instead of proposing pre-defined parameters by which dominant and marginalised discourses can be identified, my second approach in addressing this challenge is to examine these mechanisms empirically . Markus Holdo and Lizzie Öhrn Sagrelius’s (2020) work on deliberation and marginalisation is a constructive starting point. Their investigation on the Stockholm riots in 2013 led them to identify five dimensions of discursive marginalisation based on interpretive methodology.…”

“…Their investigation on the Stockholm riots in 2013 led them to identify five dimensions of discursive marginalisation based on interpretive methodology. They applied a ‘decentred’ approach by examining how communities affected by the riot experienced marginalisation through (1) imposition of existing narratives, (2) inclusion of locally dominant actors, (3) discursive distancing, (4) reliance on social markers, and (5) paternalistic conflict avoidance, all of which affect the shape of public deliberation (Holdo and Sagrelius, 2020: 5–6). In this approach, the theoretical insights are based on an empirical case, but these insights find resonance in broader questions of marginalisation deliberative theorists face.…”

Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild

“…The literature on power and deliberation also notes that the dominance of certain preexisting narratives that frame shared understandings or explanations of phenomena can lead to the marginalization of those for whom those narratives are not familiar. 11 One relevant consideration is that local and global power imbalances (as well as the heterogeneity of different community stakeholder groups) influence how different groups of people understand and experience harm, making it critical to engage Indigenous peoples in a way that empowers them to define what is deemed risk, benefit, and harm through their local epistemologies and ways of life. It is imperative for Western-trained scientists and ethicists to reflect upon the presumptions underlying their own perceptions of risk and benefit.…”

An inclusive and participatory approach to counter-radicalization? Examining the role of Muslim associations in the Swedish policy process

“…These roles come with boundaries of action. Actions available to some people are unavailable to others, and what is ‘not my place to say’ for some is someone else’s right to speak (see also Hay, 1995: 203 and Holdo and Öhrn Sagrelius, 2019).…”