News,Talk, Opinion,Participation: The Part Played by Conversation in Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy can be defined as a political system based on citizens' free discussion of public issues. While most scholars have discussed deliberative democracy normatively, this study attempts to test the validity of a model of deliberative democracy through examining the interrelationships among its four components: newsmedia use, political conversation, opinion formation, and political participation. Sufficient empirical evidence was found to support the hypotheses that (a) news-media use is closely associated with the frequency of political conversation in daily life both at general and issue-specific levels; (b) willingness to argue with those who have different opinions is influenced by majority perceptions and by news-media use and political talk; (c) news-media use and political conversation have positive effects on certain measures of the quality of opinions (argument quality, consideredness, and opinionation) and perhaps on opinion consistency; and (d) news-media use and political conversation are closely associated also with participatory activities, but more so with "campaigning" than "complaining."     

How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation?

The ideal of deliberation requires that citizens engage in reasonable discussion despite disagreements. In practice, if their experience is to match this normative ideal, participants in an actual deliberation should prefer moderate disagreement to conflict-free discussion within homogeneous groups, and to conflict-driven discussion where differences are intractable. This article proposes a research design and methods for assessing the quality of a deliberative event based on the perceptions of the participants themselves. In a structured deliberative event, over 2,000 individuals were assigned to small groups composed of about 10 persons of varying levels of ideological difference to discuss health care reform in California. We find that participants experience higher satisfaction with deliberation under moderate ideological difference than when they are in homogeneous or in highly disparate groups. That moderate disagreement induces optimal deliberation is consistent with normative expectations and empirically demonstrates the deliberative quality of this event.     

Book Review

Theorists have argued that discussion and disagreement are essential components of sound public opinion, and indeed that both are necessary for effective democracy. But their putative benefits have not been well tested. Consequently, this article examines whether disagreement in political conversation contributes to opinion quality--specifically, whether it expands one's understanding of others' perspectives. Data are drawn from a survey of the American public ( N = 1,684) conducted in February and March 2000. Open-ended survey measures of "argument repertoire"--reasons people can give in support of their own opinions, as well as reasons they can offer to support opposing points of view--are examined in light of numerous explanatory variables, including the frequency of political conversation and exposure to disagreement. Results confirm the hypothesis that exposure to disagreement does indeed contribute to people's ability to generate reasons, and in particular reasons why others might disagree with their own views.     

The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations

This article investigates 16 organizations that attempt to foster better public deliberation in local and national communities. It develops a typology of these organizations and discusses them in the context of the scholarly literature on deliberative democracy. It particularly focuses upon the contributions these organizations may make to debates within the literature between advocates of relational and rational modes of deliberation. It finds that, much like the literature, practitioners of deliberative democracy wrestle with the competing demands of inclusiveness and group cohesion. Organizations attempt to solve this dilemma by stressing group action. However, this emphasis on action raises another dilemma associated with the relation between deliberative and representative models of politics. The essay concludes by suggesting that these organizations have accepted the challenge of improving public life through discourse that has been laid down by deliberative democratic theory. As such, they represent a natural experiment in deliberative democracy that deserves the serious attention of the scholarly community.     

Expanding the Conversation: Multiplier Effects From a Deliberative Field Experiment

Do formal deliberative events influence larger patterns of political discussion and public opinion? Critics argue that only a tiny number of people can participate in any given gathering and that deliberation may not remedy—and may in fact exacerbate—inequalities. We assess these criticisms with an experimental design merging a formal deliberative session with data on participants’ social networks. We conducted a field experiment in which randomly selected constituents attended an online deliberative session with their U.S. Senator. We find that attending the deliberative session dramatically increased interpersonal political discussion on topics relating to the event. Importantly, after an extensive series of moderation checks, we find that no participant/nodal characteristics, or dyadic/network characteristics, conditioned these effects; this provides reassurance that observed, positive spillovers are not limited to certain portions of the citizenry. The results of our study suggest that even relatively small-scale deliberative encounters can have a broader effect in the mass public, and that these events are equal-opportunity multipliers.     

Environmental disobedience and the dialogic dimensions of dissent

In this paper, the potential for applying deliberative disobedience as a legitimation framework for environmental disobedience is unpacked. At present, disobedience on behalf of non-humans is not justified within the liberal theory of disobedience put forward by Rawls. Instead of framing harms to environment as indirect harms to humans, Smith’s framework of deliberative disobedience may be invoked on the premises that disobedients publicize not fundamental rights violations, but systematically distorted communication in the process that enacted the environmental policy or decision. To this end, the paper engages in a critical discussion about the dangers of legitimating environmental disobedience through deliberative disobedience. Indeed, its justification hinges on possessing deliberative or “dialogic” credentials as an alternative mode of address to distorted official channels. But its consequence, that of characterizing environmental disobedience as dialogic, means embracing the increasingly violent, clandestine and coercive acts as dialogue. I argue, this from deliberative premises with precarious implications for the legitimacy and uptake of environmental disobedients.     

Law,interrupted: on legislative disruption and deliberative democracy

This commentary piece teases out a theme that runs through the articles collected in this special issue: the relationship between legislative disruption and deliberative democracy. The practice of legislative disruption appears to go against the normative aspirations of deliberative democracy, but our discussion identifies several respects in which this mode of engagement can function to reinstate a deliberative environment in certain contexts. Drawing on the articles in this special issue, our analysis also brings to the fore certain inadequacies in deliberative democracy as a framework for evaluating legislative disruption.     

Transnational Partnerships: What Democracy? Whose Justice?

This article establishes that transnational partnerships should no longer be conceived as peripheral mechanisms of global governance. They have now become increasingly embedded in the multilateral system and a central component in the architecture of global governance. The intellectual progenitors of the partnership discourse have commonly justified governance by partnering as a means to close democratic deficits in global governance. Deliberative conceptualisations, on the other hand, view in the practice of partnering the emergence of a transnational public sphere populated by equal deliberative agents. This article argues that the ideas of democracy and justice ingrained in liberal and deliberative arguments for partnering are at odds with the concrete workings of these mechanisms of governance, which, above all, reflect asymmetrical configurations of power. Drawing on the insights of neo-Gramscian international political economy (IPE), it suggests that partnerships can be best conceptualised as sites of contested authority and frail legitimacy.     

Accounting for Extra-Dyadic Sources of International Outcomes

Leaders consider the broader international landscape when making foreign policy choices. This landscape could encompass a single external actor, the local region, or even the whole international system. Quantitative analyses of international outcomes, however, frequently do not account for this broader context. This study suggests a corrective, illustrating the value of incorporating extra-dyadic variables into analyses with dyadic and monadic outcomes. The challenge is to parsimoniously capture theoretically salient elements of the multilateral environment. We contend that a measure that links distributions of power within any k-set of relevant states to uncertainty over conflict outcomes is a promising option for two reasons. First, the measure builds from and accords with canonical theories of international politics. Second, it offers scholars a simple and flexible means to define and account for the set of states that constitute the relevant multilateral landscape. Illustrative applications linking power distributions and outcome uncertainty to alliance formation and pursuit of nuclear weapons demonstrate that extra-dyadic factors consistently influence foreign policy outcomes. This study thus shows that situating such outcomes within their broader context is both feasible and substantively important. Moreover, it contributes to recent efforts to address shortcomings of monadic and dyadic studies.     

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

The mediation of public conflicts is a complex interactive, social‐psychological, and often politicized process. Because of their complexity, the literature on how to effectively mediate these conflicts remains imprecise. In this study, I have focused on the sequencing of the overall mediation process and the interplay between initial conditions, mediation styles, and process dynamics to explore predictable patterns from early stage to deadline negotiations. By undertaking a two‐step qualitative comparison of twenty‐three public mediation cases, I have attempted to identify “equifinal” pathways — that is, a variety of different ways in which the same outcome can be achieved — that can lead to mediation success (or failure). My analysis reveals that both inclusivity (i.e., including all relevant participants in the process) and mediation institutionalization (i.e., the mediation process is sufficiently embedded in the political and administrative system) correlate to greater mediation effectiveness. Furthermore, this study also suggests that such key elements of deliberative negotiations as recognition and argumentation are essential for reaching a consensual agreement.     

Responding to Critical Moments with Humor, Recognition, and Hope

Having "a sense of humor" when negotiations get tough has very little to do with being funny. Enacting rather than claiming, performing rather than arguing, mediators' humor reveals multiple meanings and uncertainties, multiple perspectives and their limits, and parties' needs while generating opportunities to learn. Humor can go wrong, and mediators stress a sine qua non: it must be respectful, never used at the expense of a negotiating party. At critical moments in negotiations, humor can be an important tool, if improvised with regard to tone, timing, affect, and respect. Mediators use humor to deconstruct and reconstruct parties' presumptions of mediators' authority; to recognize vulnerability, create moments of intimacy, and suggest possible community; to acknowledge painful histories and enable difficult conversations; to provide safety, release, and new collaborative openings. Mediators' use of humor can signal possibility and hope and, not least of all, level power to encourage autonomy and build capacity — thus creating deliberative space and encouraging deliberative practice as well.     

Using Blogs as a Teaching Tool in Negotiation

This article reports on the experimental use of blogs as a teaching tool in a course on negotiation and mediation. The blogs were of two kinds: individual "journal" blogs accessible only by the student author and the course instructor, and a class or collective blog, accessible by all members of the course. The use of blogs builds on the familiar use of journals as a tool for reflection and personal review and adopts the technology of online communication with which the student body is increasingly familiar and comfortable. The article reports on the student response to this development and the perceived impact on extended peer-to-peer communication, cooperation, and skills development. This note also briefly places this experiment in the wider context of the widespread use of blogging, online social networking, and — more ambitiously — the promotion of critical and deliberative skills through the use of information communications technology.     

Pornografie en beïnvloeding

SUMMARY

IN this article the author tries to establish the reason or reasons for the wide divergence in research findings con-cerning the potentiality of pornography to exert influence. He traces it, amongst others, to two factors:

1. The complex, basically double-edged nature of porno graphy (defined as approving portrayal of dehumanized sex): on the one hand it entails something pleasant (the sex aspect of it), on the other hand something repugnant (the element of dehumanization in it).

2. A too restricted view of the concept of influence, together with its related concept change. Change does not only entail change of conduct; change in outlook is relevant change too.

He points out that after World War II, in the light of the large divergence of opinions and convictions concerning the potentiality of pornography to bring about change, there was an increasing demand for experimental verification of opinions and convictions regarding the potentiality of pornography to influence.

He focuses on one important post-war effort to provide experimental support for the conviction that any detrimental effect of pornography is so slight that it is negligible: the inquiry of the American Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, whose Report (1970) had such a profound influence throughout the world.

He points out a number of gross shortcomings of the Report, the most important being the non-representativeness of the experimental sample, the limited period of experimentation, the remoteness from real life of the experimental situations, the erratic experimental model, and the selective reporting by the Main Report of the findings contained in the Technical Reports.

On the basis of a broad definition of the concepts pornography, influence, change and harm, the author comes to the conclusion that pornography undoubtedly has the ability to influence, even to the point of harm, and harm not only on an individual, but also of a communal nature.     

Affective images of the public political mind: Semantic differential reference frames for an experience of the 1988 presidential campaign

This project seeks theoretical and methodological advances in the study of political advertising effects during election campaigns. On the theoretical side, we hypothesize that racial cues embedded in standard political advertising appeals, involving taxation and government spending, boost opinion constraint by priming global political ideology. On the methodological side, we replicate a lab experiment in face-toface interviews with a probability sample of a large metropolitan area. Results suggest that subtle race cues do increase issue constraint for "racialized" issues such as welfare, affirmative action, crime policy, and the overall size of government. Constraint of opinions about issues less relevant to race, such as abortion, spending on public schools, universal health care, and raising the minimum wage, does not increase as a result of exposure to racial cues. Global ideology is powerfully primed by implicit racial cues embedded in typical political appeals. Finally, though demographic differences in the samples moderate some effects, the general pattern is highly consistent across the two research settings. Implications for strategic communication during campaigns, group centrism in American elections, and the benefits of methodological pluralism in the study of media effects are discussed.     

Explaining the Awakening: Engagement,Publicity, and the Transformation of Iraqi Sunni Political Attitudes

This article explores the reasons for the dramatic change in Sunni Arab Iraqi attitudes toward the United States from 2004 to 2007, which made possible the “Awakenings,” local groups of mostly Sunni tribes and former insurgents that decided to cooperate with the United States against al Qaeda in Iraq. While there have been many studies of the military strategy, there has been little attention paid to the reasons for the underlying attitude change. This article argues that the dramatic changes in the information environment and in the nature of direct contacts across a range of Sunni society played a crucial role. It draws on a wide range of Arabic language primary sources that have generally been neglected in U.S. military-centric accounts. No single dialogue flipped the Sunnis, and the change would not likely have happened without the material changes underpinning their interests. But years of ongoing, intensive dialogues across a wide range of interlocutors reshaped the foundations of the relationship and to convince those involved individuals of the possibility of a strategic shift. American counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine and the surge helped by proliferating the points of contact with Iraqis and by transforming the relations at the individual level. This has broad implications for key debates in contemporary U.S. foreign policy, as well as for counterinsurgency and international relations (IR) theory.     

Predicting Deliberative Conversation: The Impact of Discussion Networks,Media Use,and Political Cognitions

This study explores the meaning and origins of deliberative political conversation, characterized by an openness to political conflict, the absence of conversational dominance, clear and reasonable argument, and mutual comprehension. Adapting McLeod, Scheufele, and Moy's (1999) McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A. and Moy, P. 1999. Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16: 315–336. [CSA][CROSSREF][Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] model of democratic engagement, we posit a series of relationships among discussion networks, media use, political cognition, and public participation. Using two divergent samples—one consisting of 149 adult literacy students and another comprising 130 public forum participants—we test the model's utility as a predictor of deliberative conversation. Structural equation modeling indicates that network characteristics had mixed effects. Print media use and interpersonal discussion tended to enhance deliberative conversation, and television news viewing hindered both the reasonableness of one's arguments and the comprehension of others' views. Taken together, these results suggest that the deliberative quality of public talk has a complex relationship with common predictors of other political communication behavior.     

Alessandro Orsini. Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists

ABSTRACT

Those who study terrorism are familiar with the claim that suicide attacks are the most lethal form of terrorism today. Suicide attacks kill more people on average than non-suicide attacks, thereby justifying why terrorist organizations use this costly method of attack and explaining in part why suicide tactics have proliferated. However, extant empirical support for this claim is largely insufficient, focusing only on macro-level analysis of lethality data. Using data from the Global Terrorism Database, this study examines variation in lethality among suicide and non-suicide attacks based on geographic location, attack type, and target/victim type. It also introduces a new metric—the lethality ratio—to measure costs and benefits of attacks in terms of lives lost. It finds that, although suicide tactics are generally more lethal than non-suicide tactics, they also come at greater costs to the organization. This analysis also finds behavior that is inconsistent with the premise that terrorist groups are focused on maximizing lethality while reducing costs in all cases; that despite certain advantages, suicide attacks may remain a suboptimal tactic from the perspective of the terrorist group; and that additional criteria may help explain why suicide tactics are used.     

Hostile Media Perceptions: Partisan Assessments of Press and Public during the 1997 United Parcel Service Strike

This study investigated partisan perceptions of hostile bias in news coverage of the 1997 Teamsters Union strike against United Parcel Service (UPS), and the processes by which Teamster and UPS partisans formed impressions of public opinion regarding the strike. As predicted, both partisan groups perceived neutral news coverage as biased against their respective sides. However, perceptions of hostile media bias did not produce corresponding perceptions of hostile public opinion; instead, partisans appeared to rely on their personal opinions when estimating the opinions of others. Nonpartisan control-group subjects, however, did infer public opinion in part from their subjective assessments of news content. Findings suggest that level of involvement is crucial in predicting the effect that perceived media coverage of social issues will have on perceptions of public opinion regarding those issues.     

Framing,Value Words,and Citizens' Explanations of Their Issue Opinions

This study examines the effects of framing on how citizens use value language to explain their views on political issues. An experiment simulated exposure to framing in media coverage of gay rights. The results show that participants who received an "equality" frame were particularly likely to explain their views on gay rights in terms of equality and that participants who received a "morality" frame were particularly likely to cast their opinions in the language of morality. A closer examination, however, showed that exposure to the frames encouraged participants to use value language not only in ways suggested by the frames but also in ways that challenged the frames. Moreover, the results indicated that exposure to the "morality" frame interfered with the impact of the "equality" frame, suggesting that the presence of alternative frames can dampen framing effects.     

The G20 and Global Justice: The Potential of Transnational Deliberative Democratic Theory

The G20’s capacity to promote global justice is up for debate. This article contends that the G20 has both problems and possibilities with respect to helping advance global justice. The potential of the G20 to promote global justice stems from its importance as a site for deliberation of policy ideas and its recent efforts to promote greater outreach and engagement with societal interests and states outside its narrow membership. Ultimately, G20 policy discussions could be more effective if its processes were more deliberative and better considered questions of justice and the perspectives of people affected by its decisions. The article utilises a transnational application of deliberative democracy theory to outline this potential. It attempts to identify this potential by drawing a practical balance between the normative importance of justice and the contemporary reality of the G20’s purpose and function.