 |
Deliberation and Difference: The Contributions of Civic Dialogue
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
D
ELIBERATION AND
D
IFFERENCE
:
T
HE
C
ONTRIBUTIONS OF
C
IVIC
D
IALOGUE
Katherine Cramer Walsh
Department of Political Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison
## email not listed ##
Prepared for presentation to the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL Sept 2-5, 2004.
1
Abstract: Heterogeneous democracies face the challenge of respecting differences while pursuing the good of the whole. Although deliberative democracy has been posed as a way to achieve this, serious doubts remain. In this paper, I investigate the prospects of a particular form of communication to attend to diversity while upholding unity. My focus is on city-wide dialogue programs on race and ethnic relations that are currently used throughout the United States. Their unique focus on perspectives, power and inequality make these programs especially likely to strike a balance between unity and diversity. I examine the practice of civic dialogue programs through survey studies of people doing dialogue in two cities, participant observation, and in-depth interviews with practitioners, participants, and public officials in 45 cities throughout the United States. By looking at the effects of the dialogue, listening to the way practitioners are using this communication, and observing what takes place within it, this study expands our understanding of the contributions of deliberation to heterogeneous democracies. We see that in practice, civic dialogue is predominantly focused on recognizing and understanding cultural difference. Although there is little attention to unity in the form of consensus or common ground, the way in which people are using dialogue around the United States suggests a revision of our ideas about the place of marginalized voices within the deliberative system.
Is deliberative democracy a route to enhanced civic life in contexts of difference? By
“difference,” I mean variations in perspectives, or worldviews, standpoints, or cultural lenses. Deliberation is expected to be able to hold democracies together in heterogeneous societies by legitimating decisions (Benhabib 1996, 2002; Chambers 1996), conferring tolerance and mutual respect toward others (Gutmann and Thompson 1996), and encouraging public-spirited perspectives on public issues (Macedo 1999, 10). Sometimes the hopes for deliberation go even further. There is often an expectation that deliberation enables citizens of disparate cultural backgrounds to forge a kind of unity such as consensus on problem areas (Ackerman 1989),
1
I am very grateful to the people who agreed to be interviewed or observed for this study. Thank you to
Kristine Berg, Tim Bagshaw, Patrick Guarasci, Patty LeBaron, Zach Mesenbourg, Hillary Schulman, and Adam Busch for their research assistance. My gratitude to members of the Political Behavior Research Group and the Communication Science Colloquium at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, participants in the National Election Studies Fellows Workshop at the University of Michigan, seminar participants in the Department of Government at Cornell University and in the Departments of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Minnesota, Jason Wittenberg, Joe Soss, Richard Merelman, William Scheuerman, Jamie Druckman, and Paula Pickering for very helpful feedback on this paper. This is a revision of a paper presented at the 2004 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association.
|
| | Authors: Walsh, Katherine. |
|
| |
|
|
D
ELIBERATION AND
D
IFFERENCE
:
T
HE
C
ONTRIBUTIONS OF
C
IVIC
D
IALOGUE
Katherine Cramer Walsh
Department of Political Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison
## email not listed ##
Prepared for presentation to the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL Sept 2-5, 2004.
1
Abstract: Heterogeneous democracies face the challenge of respecting differences while
pursuing the good of the whole. Although deliberative democracy has been posed as a
way to achieve this, serious doubts remain. In this paper, I investigate the prospects of a
particular form of communication to attend to diversity while upholding unity. My focus
is on city-wide dialogue programs on race and ethnic relations that are currently used
throughout the United States. Their unique focus on perspectives, power and inequality
make these programs especially likely to strike a balance between unity and diversity. I
examine the practice of civic dialogue programs through survey studies of people doing
dialogue in two cities, participant observation, and in-depth interviews with practitioners,
participants, and public officials in 45 cities throughout the United States. By looking at
the effects of the dialogue, listening to the way practitioners are using this
communication, and observing what takes place within it, this study expands our
understanding of the contributions of deliberation to heterogeneous democracies. We see
that in practice, civic dialogue is predominantly focused on recognizing and
understanding cultural difference. Although there is little attention to unity in the form of
consensus or common ground, the way in which people are using dialogue around the
United States suggests a revision of our ideas about the place of marginalized voices
within the deliberative system.
Is deliberative democracy a route to enhanced civic life in contexts of difference? By
“difference,” I mean variations in perspectives, or worldviews, standpoints, or cultural lenses.
Deliberation is expected to be able to hold democracies together in heterogeneous societies by
legitimating decisions (Benhabib 1996, 2002; Chambers 1996), conferring tolerance and mutual
respect toward others (Gutmann and Thompson 1996), and encouraging public-spirited
perspectives on public issues (Macedo 1999, 10). Sometimes the hopes for deliberation go even
further. There is often an expectation that deliberation enables citizens of disparate cultural
backgrounds to forge a kind of unity such as consensus on problem areas (Ackerman 1989),
1
I am very grateful to the people who agreed to be interviewed or observed for this study. Thank you to
Kristine Berg, Tim Bagshaw, Patrick Guarasci, Patty LeBaron, Zach Mesenbourg, Hillary Schulman, and
Adam Busch for their research assistance. My gratitude to members of the Political Behavior Research
Group and the Communication Science Colloquium at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, participants
in the National Election Studies Fellows Workshop at the University of Michigan, seminar participants in
the Department of Government at Cornell University and in the Departments of Political Science and
Psychology at the University of Minnesota, Jason Wittenberg, Joe Soss, Richard Merelman, William
Scheuerman, Jamie Druckman, and Paula Pickering for very helpful feedback on this paper. This is a
revision of a paper presented at the 2004 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association.
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 36 
