Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:56:08.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2020

Rousiley C. M. Maia Open the ORCID record for Rousiley C. M. Maia [Opens in a new window] ,
Danila Cal ,
Janine Bargas  and
Neylson J. B. Crepalde
Rousiley C. M. Maia*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, The Federal University of de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
Danila Cal
Affiliation:
Faculty of Communication, The Federal University of Para, Belém, PA, Brazil
Janine Bargas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Communication, The Federal University of the South and Southeast of Pará (Unifesspa), Rondon do Pará, PA, Brazil
Neylson J. B. Crepalde
Affiliation:
Methodist Technological University Izabela Hendrix, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
*
*E-mails: rousiley@fafich.ufmg.br, rousiley@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Real-world political discussions usually mix reason-giving and storytelling in complex ways, but the interplay between these practices remains essentially unexamined. This article builds a theoretical argument based on a systemic approach for investigating such forms of communication in institutionally organized forums and informal settings alike. It contends that generalizations should not be made about the role of giving reasons and telling stories for good deliberation. A distinctive analytical framework is developed for examining these practices when deliberation is high quality, low quality, or changing (high to low or low to high). Drawing on data about discussions on reducing the criminal responsibility age in Brazil in legislative public hearings and face-to-face groups, the analysis uncovers variations in the structure of reasons and stories and shifts in their functions in optimal and suboptimal moments of deliberation. By incorporating the pragmatic dimension of interactions into the analysis, this paper contributes to advancing comparative analyses in different contexts.

Keywords

deliberationreason-givingstorytellingdeliberative systemdeliberative forums
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 113 - 132
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, B.E. (2014), ‘Reason-giving in deliberative forums’, Journal of Public Deliberation 10(2): Article 6. Retrieved 9 June 2015 from https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art6/Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A. and Gerber, M. (2014), ‘Gentlemanly conversation’ or vigorous contestation? An exploratory analysis of communication modes in a transnational deliberative pool (Europolis)’, in Grölund, K., Bächtiger, A. and Setälä, M. (eds.), Deliberative Mini-publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A. and Wegmann, A. (2014), ‘Scaling up deliberation’, in Elstub, S. and Mclaverty, P. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases, Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R. and Steiner, J. (2010), ‘Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities’, Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 32–63. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L.W. (2008), ‘Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments’, Communication Theory 18(1): 93–116. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L.W. (2013), ‘Framing democracy and conflict through storytelling in deliberative groups’, Journal of Public Deliberation 9(4): Article 4. Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art4Google Scholar
Black, L.W. and Lubensky, R. (2013), ‘Deliberative design and storytelling in the Australian citizens’ parliament’, in Carson, L., Gastil, J., Hartz-Karp, J. and Lubensky, R. (eds.), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Kindle edition, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (1996), Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. and Richardson, H.S. (2009), ‘Liberalism, deliberative democracy, and “reasons that all can accept”’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 17(3): 253–274. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00330.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, L., Gastil, J., Hartz-Karp, J. and Lubensky, R. (eds.) (2013), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Chambers, S. (2004), ‘Behind closed doors: publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation’, Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1997), ‘Deliberation and democratic legitimacy’, in Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy, London, UK: MIT Press, pp. 67–92.Google Scholar
Colombo, C. (2016), ‘Justifications and citizen competence in direct democracy – a multilevel analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 48(3): 787–806. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics and Contestations, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2016), ‘Symposium commentary: reflections on the theory of deliberative systems’, Critical Policy Studies [e-journal] 10: 209–215. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2016.1170620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. and Hendriks, C. (2012), ‘Fostering deliberation in the forum and beyond’, in Fischer, F. and Gottweis, H. (eds.), The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kindle Edition, pp. 567–1125.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1998), ‘Deliberation and constitution making’, in Elster, J. (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elstub, S. (2014), ‘Mini-publics: issues and cases’, in Elstub, S. and McLaverty, P. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases, Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, Ch. 10.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. (2009), When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gabardi, W. (2001), ‘Contemporary models of democracy’, Polity 33: 547–568. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3235516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, W.A. (1992), Talking Politics, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. (2018), ‘The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation’, The Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 14: 271–291. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, M., Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Reber, S. and Rohr, S. (2016), ‘Deliberative abilities and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis)’, British Journal of Political Science 48(4): 1093–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2005), ‘Sequencing deliberative moments’, Acta Politica 40: 182–196. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. and Setälä, M. (eds.) (2014), Deliberative Mini-publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (1996), Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984), Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1995), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (2005), ‘Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics’, Acta Politica 40: 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (2009), Europe: The Faltering Project, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2017), Postmetaphysical Thinking. 2: Essays and Replies. Translated by Cronin, C., Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Himmelroos, S. (2017), ‘Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums – a comparison of four deliberative mini-publics’, Journal of Public Deliberation 13(1): Article 3. Retrieved 30 August 2019 from https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss1/art3Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. (2004), ‘Bargaining through arguing: an empirical analysis based on speech act theory’, Political Communication 21(2): 195–222. Retrieved 30 August 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaramillo, M.C. and Steiner, J. (2014), ‘Deliberative transformative moments: a new concept as amendment to the discourse quality index’, Journal of Public Deliberation 10(2): Article 8. Retrieved 10 June 2015 from https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art8Google Scholar
Johnson, G.F., Black, L.W. and Knobloch, K.R. (2017), ‘Citizens’ initiative review process: mediating emotions, promoting productive deliberation’, Policy and Politics 45(3): 431–447. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14595273846060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, C.F. and Mansbridge, J. (2005), ‘Disagreement and consensus: the need for dynamic updating in public deliberation’, Journal of Public Deliberation 1(1): Article 2. Retrieved 10 June 2006 from https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol1/iss1/art2Google Scholar
Karpowitz, C.F. and Raphael, C. (2014), Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laden, A.S. (2012), Reasoning: A Social Picture, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maia, R.C.M. (2012), Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk, New York, NY: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Maia, R.C.M. (2014), Recognition and the Media, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maia, R.C.M. and Garcêz, R.L. (2014), ‘Recognition, feelings of injustice and claim justification: a case study of deaf people’s storytelling on the internet’, European Political Science Review 6(3): 359–382. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maia, R.C.M. and Hauber, G. (2019), ‘The emotional dimension of reason-giving in deliberative forums’, Policy Sciences (Online First). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09363-1Google Scholar
Maia, R.C.M., Cal, D., Bargas, J.K.R., Oliveira, V.V., Rossini, P.G.C. and Sampaio, R.C. (2017), ‘Authority and deliberative moments: assessing equality and inequality in deeply divided groups’, Journal of Public Deliberation 13(2): Article 7. Retrieved from https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol13/iss2/art7Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1999), ‘Everyday talk in deliberative system’, in Macedo, S. (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Ch. 15.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin, B. and Martí, J.L. (2010), ‘The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 64–100. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J. and Warren, M.E. (2012), ‘A systemic approach to deliberative democracy’, in Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J. (eds.), Deliberative Systems, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1.Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2005), The Return of the Political, London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
Neblo, M.A. (2015), Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S. and Jennstäl, J. (2018), ‘Scaling up deliberative effects: applying lessons of mini-publics’, in Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J.S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M. E (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 20.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2012), ‘Democratizing deliberative systems’, in Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J. (eds.), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polletta, F. and Lee, J. (2006), ‘Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11’, American Sociological Review 71(5): 699–721. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polletta, F. and Gardner, B.G. (2018), ‘The forms of deliberative communication’, in Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J.S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M.E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 4.Google Scholar
Quirk, P.J., Bendix, W. and Bächtiger, A. (2018), ‘Institutional deliberation’, in Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J.S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M.E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 17.Google Scholar
Rehg, W. (1994), Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ryfe, D.M. (2006), ‘Narrative and deliberation in small group forums’, Journal of Applied Communication Research 34(1): 72–93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500420226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, L.M. (1997), ‘Against deliberation’, Political Theory 25(3): 347–376. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. and Smith, G. (2018), ‘Mini-publics and deliberative democracy’, in Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J.S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M.E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–314.Google Scholar
Sprain, L. and Black, L. (2017), ‘Deliberative moments: understanding deliberation as an interactional accomplishment’, Western Journal of Communication 82(3): 336–355. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1347275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J. (2012), The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M. and Steenbergen, M. (2004), Deliberative Politics in Action. Cross National Study of Parliamentary Debates, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, J., Jaramillo, M.C., Maia, R.C.M. and Mameli, S. (2017), Deliberation Across Deep Divisions: Transformative Moments, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strandberg, K and Grönlund, K. (2018), ‘Online deliberation’, in Bächtiger, A, Dryzek, J.S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 365–377.Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, J. and Wichowski, A. (2011), ‘Political discussion online’, in Consalvo, M., Ess, C. and Burnett, R. (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Internet Studies, London, UK: Blackwell, Ch. 8.Google Scholar
Thompson, D.F. (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ulbert, C. and Risse, T. (2005), ‘Deliberately changing the discourse: what does make arguing effective?’, Acta Politica 40: 351–367. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M.E. (2006), ‘What should and should not be said: deliberating sensitive issues’, Journal of Social Philosophy 37(2): 163–181. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00325.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. and Pearse, H. (eds.) (2008), Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I.M. (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Maia et al. supplementary material

Maia et al. supplementary material

Download Maia et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.3 KB