Monthly Archives: December 2013

Why are BAD Words %$&#@!?

Posted on by
Reply

I recently stumbled across the following video and was fascinated with some of the statistics presented in the first few minutes (does your community swear more than others? Looking at you Ohio!).  But the entire video is equally fascinating.  I’ve never been bothered by what others consider offensive language.  They’re just words afterall… or are they?  When civility is key to a successful dialogue, understanding the language of incivility becomes a necessary skill in every facilitator’s toolkit.

Michael, in the video above, mentions a lecture given by experimental psychologist Steven Pinker, also available on YouTube. It’s headier stuff than the Vsauce video, but worth a watch for those interested in the pschology of language. Pinker defines swearing as a window to a person’s emotions, and examines language as a window into human nature.

I would love to hear about how our community deals with “bad words”? Are they discouraged (or even forbidden) in your engagement processess? Or have you learned to work with them in a way that avoids disruption? Or are they even encouraged? Leave a comment and let us know!

a technique for measuring the quality of deliberation

Posted on by
Reply

(Ann Arbor, MI) I’ve proposed that we can map an individual’s thinking about moral and political issues as a set of beliefs and connections. For instance, if a person says that she favors abortion rights because she is committed to individual freedom, she is linking two nodes in a mental map. Because her overall epistemic framework is a network, it will have formal properties, such as density and centrality.

When two or more individuals interact on moral or political issues (talking and/or working together), their respective network maps will come into contact and change. The community formed by people who so interact can be viewed as a larger network of beliefs and connections that also has formal properties.

Certain network structures are better than others for deliberation and interaction. If you are a good deliberator, you enrich other people’s network maps and learn from theirs; you are not rigid. In the context of a liberal democracy, you must be able to “route around” your own faith commitments. You don’t have to drop them, but you must be able to make an argument that doesn’t depend on them. Likewise, your various ideas should be connected rather than isolated, so that you can give reasons for each of your beliefs.

We should be able to observe a moral network map evolve as one person interacts with others, and we should be able to rate individuals and conversations for moral excellence (by asking independent observers to assess them) and then see whether what we posit as the formal criteria of good moral networks are actually found in the best deliberators.

For example, Bloggingheads TV organized a discussion between columnists Bryce Covert (liberal) and Ramesh Ponnuru (conservative) on the topic of why women are paid less than men and what to do about it. I assert that this is a good discussion because I think it is, but also because in a study led by my colleague Felicia Sullivan, this video and several others were shown to representative samples of Americans. Most viewers liked this particular discussion, and they tended to move toward less ideologically consistent views after they watched it–evidence that it had complicated their opinions.

In the slide show below, I begin to diagram the discussion as two interlocked networks of ideas.

I didn’t finish mapping the discussion, but I got far enough to conclude that we should be looking for:

  • The number of nodes and connections. (A higher number implies a richer discussion.)
  • The density of connections. People should tie together more, rather than fewer, of their points.
  • The overlap in the two people’s networks (They need not agree but they should address each others’ views)
  • Change in their respective networks in response to the other’s.

The post a technique for measuring the quality of deliberation appeared first on Peter Levine.

Dialogue In Nigeria: Muslims & Christians Creating Their Future

Posted on by
Reply

Dialogue In Nigeria: Muslims & Christians Creating Their Future is a 65-minute video highlighting how two hundred courageous Christian and Muslim young adults met in face-to-face dialogue, listening to learn and discovering their equal humanity, new communication skills, and that “an enemy is one whose story we have not heard.”

Co-produced in January 2012 by the New Era Educational and Charitable Support Foundation and the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue, this program shares experiences from the 2010 International Conference on Youth and Interfaith Communication.

Dialogue In Nigeria is distributed on DVD and available upon request, postage included, for dialogue and deliberation practitioners, students, and trainers worldwide.  Follow the link below to learn more, request your own copy and to see increasing social outcomes of ethnic and tribal healing in other African nations and worldwide.

Resource Link:  www.traubman.igc.org/vidnigeria.htm

This resource was submitted by Libby and Len Traubman of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue via the Add-a-Resource form.

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue now out

Posted on by
Reply

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue now out 

Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, a division of the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, November / December 2013.

Cover art by Ashley Cecil (www.AshleyCecil.com)
Large PDF of the front & back covers here .

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber
Associate Professor of Public Policy Leadership
The University of Mississippi

Available online on the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group's Web site here - with 20% discount code: LEX20AUTH13.

The book is also available on Amazon.com (including UK, CA, and FR, among others) & Barnes & Noble.


About the book: 

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue presents a theory of leadership drawing on insights from Plato’s Republic, while abandoning his authoritarianism in favor of John Dewey’s democratic thought. The book continues the democratic turn for the study of leadership beyond the incorporation of democratic values into old-fashioned views about leading. The completed democratic turn leaves behind the traditional focus on a class of special people. Instead, leadership is understood as a process of judicious yet courageous guidance, infused with democratic values and open to all people.


Editorial reviews: 

“This book will certainly re-orient the field of leadership studies, but its impact will extend beyond that field. By connecting leadership with broader issues about participatory democracy, Weber will find grateful readers across political theory. He strikes a tone of optimistic practicality that especially rings true for pragmatic generation Xers and civic-minded Millennials. This book and its author are positioned as precisely that sort of new public voice capable of leading the next generations as they rise into political power and leadership themselves.”
– Dr. John Robert Shook, University at Buffalo, New York

“From Plato through today’s college students, Eric Weber’s Democracy and Leadership carefully examines the pedagogy of leadership development. Because the book is so rich in content and style, you can add Weber’s name to a select list of noted Southern scholars and writers.”
– Dean James L. “Skip” Rutherford, The Clinton School of Public Service, The University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR

“This superbly researched and written book defines more clearly than anything that I have read in recent years the elements that are essential for a democratic political system to fulfill its proper mission. Coming as it does in a time of diminished public decision-making capability, particularly at the national governmental level, this volume points the way out of our current malaise. It should be read by every citizen who wants to see our system work as well as it is capable of. As a former governor of Mississippi, I can attest to the value of the wise and pragmatic counsel which it contains.”
– The Honorable William Winter, Governor of Mississippi from 1972-1976 and from 1980-1984, the “Education Governor.”


Learn More
If you'd like to learn more about my further work and writings, visit EricThomasWeber.org, follow me on Twitter, connect with me on LinkedIn, or follow me on Academia.edu.

 In addition, if you like the cover, see Ashley Cecil's full painting here, and visit her Web site: www.AshleyCecil.com.

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue now out

Posted on by
Reply

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue now out 

Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, a division of the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, November / December 2013.

Cover art by Ashley Cecil (www.AshleyCecil.com)
Large PDF of the front & back covers here .

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber
Associate Professor of Public Policy Leadership
The University of Mississippi

Available online on the Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group's Web site here - with 20% discount code: LEX20AUTH13.

The book is also available on Amazon.com (including UK, CA, and FR, among others) & Barnes & Noble.


About the book: 

Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue presents a theory of leadership drawing on insights from Plato’s Republic, while abandoning his authoritarianism in favor of John Dewey’s democratic thought. The book continues the democratic turn for the study of leadership beyond the incorporation of democratic values into old-fashioned views about leading. The completed democratic turn leaves behind the traditional focus on a class of special people. Instead, leadership is understood as a process of judicious yet courageous guidance, infused with democratic values and open to all people.


Editorial reviews: 

“This book will certainly re-orient the field of leadership studies, but its impact will extend beyond that field. By connecting leadership with broader issues about participatory democracy, Weber will find grateful readers across political theory. He strikes a tone of optimistic practicality that especially rings true for pragmatic generation Xers and civic-minded Millennials. This book and its author are positioned as precisely that sort of new public voice capable of leading the next generations as they rise into political power and leadership themselves.”
– Dr. John Robert Shook, University at Buffalo, New York

“From Plato through today’s college students, Eric Weber’s Democracy and Leadership carefully examines the pedagogy of leadership development. Because the book is so rich in content and style, you can add Weber’s name to a select list of noted Southern scholars and writers.”
– Dean James L. “Skip” Rutherford, The Clinton School of Public Service, The University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR

“This superbly researched and written book defines more clearly than anything that I have read in recent years the elements that are essential for a democratic political system to fulfill its proper mission. Coming as it does in a time of diminished public decision-making capability, particularly at the national governmental level, this volume points the way out of our current malaise. It should be read by every citizen who wants to see our system work as well as it is capable of. As a former governor of Mississippi, I can attest to the value of the wise and pragmatic counsel which it contains.”
– The Honorable William Winter, Governor of Mississippi from 1972-1976 and from 1980-1984, the “Education Governor.”


Learn More
If you'd like to learn more about my further work and writings, visit EricThomasWeber.org, follow me on Twitter, connect with me on LinkedIn, or follow me on Academia.edu.

 In addition, if you like the cover, see Ashley Cecil's full painting here, and visit her Web site: www.AshleyCecil.com.

Community Engagement Fellowship at Merrimack College

Posted on by
Reply

We wanted to share an announcement we saw recently about a graduate fellowship program we think some of our NCDD members might be interested in. Merrimack College’s Masters of Education program is offering a year-long, full tuition fellowship that focuses on community engagement – perfect for folks seeking to gain more theoretical grounding as well as experience in engagement. You can learn more from the announcement below or visit the fellowship page here.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Merrimack

I am pleased to announce that applications have opened for our 2014-2015 M.Ed. Community Engagement Fellowship programs. This is a full-tuition, 36-credit graduate fellowship leading to a Master’s in Community Engagement in one year. This program focuses on diversity, social justice, community development, and organizational change. Students gain a broad understanding of civic engagement in the nonprofit sector and pursue careers as nonprofit leaders, social change activists, and leaders in the national service learning movement. I would be grateful if you could pass this information on to your colleagues and interested individuals who may be interested in learning more about this program.

Highlights of our fellowship program:

  • The year-long fellowships cover all tuition costs.
  • Students take courses in the summer and evenings throughout the semesters as they engage in a site-based residency, gaining unparalleled hands-on field experience.
  • Students have a site mentor and a college supervisor throughout the fellowship.
  • Fellowships are open to all academic majors and backgrounds; bachelor’s degree is required.
  • Students earn a Master’s degree in one year.

Learn more about the Community Engagement program at Merrimack College:

Learn more at www.merrimack.edu/academics/graduate/fellowship-programs/community-engagement.php.

on snark and smarm

Posted on by
Reply

(on a plane heading to Ann Arbor, MI) Tom Scocca’s article “On Smarm” is getting a lot of attention, including responses by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker and Ryan Kearney in The New Republic.

Scocca argues that “snark” is not our problem. It is an appropriate reaction to “smarm,” which is the serious threat. His original piece is learned and insightful in the tradition of Harry Frankfurt on bullshit or Susan Sontag on camp. I recommend it and will not attempt to summarize it. I do miss two things, however. One is a set of true definitions (with necessary and sufficient conditions), as opposed to clusters of examples. What is snark? What is smarm? The other is evidence of trends over time. Everyone in this debate seems eager to posit that our moment is dominated by snark, smarm, or both. But one can easily think of examples from the distant past. (Juvenal was snarky; Augustus was smarmy.) On what basis do we think that either vice has increased of late?

I would propose that:

Snark (presumably a portmanteau of “snide” plus “remark”) means indirect critique. Instead of rebutting the facts or the logic of an argument, snark casts doubt on the sincerity or competence of the source. It is not a full-blown ad hominem argument but a suggestion that the target is untrustworthy. It is usually humorous, although humor doesn’t seem essential.

Smarm is the evocation of positive, sentimental emotions for the purpose of preempting criticism. For instance, bringing a person with Down’s syndrome onto the stage of the 2000 Republican National Convention was smarmy because it foreclosed criticism of the nominee. The particular form of smarm that concerns Scocca is the evocation of civility or niceness to preempt debate about the dominant person or established rules in a given situation.

Both snark and smarm violate a very high standard of deliberative reason, in which one should respond to any given policy, norm, or proposal by evaluating the evidence, norms, and logic behind it. A critical reaction should explicitly challenge elements of the argument, not the speaker. And the critic should be ready to propose and defend some alternative view.

Snark misses that standard because a snarky comment neither explicitly rebuts the target’s arguments nor offers an alternative position. Smarm misses the standard because it doesn’t offer an argument at all, just a sentiment.

But snark can provoke or advance a deliberative discussion. Typically, a snarky comment provokes a reaction, and that can take the form of an explicit defensive argument that then deserves a reasonable response. Thus snark can be an opening move or invitation to deliberation. Smarm, on the other hand, succeeds if it prevents a group from deliberating.

Further, snark is a tool of the marginal and dispossessed, the peanut gallery, whereas smarm (by my definition) is employed by the person in charge, whether that is the President of the United States or just a dad in the front seat of his SUV. I am therefore with Scocca that smarm is the more serious problem, and snark can be justified as a response to it. If smarm casts a feel-good spell that prevents critical thought, snark can break the spell.

The post on snark and smarm appeared first on Peter Levine.

Text, Talk, Act: Results and How to Continue

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, on Dec. 5, thousands of people across the country joined Creating Community Solutions in a “Text, Talk, and Act,” a nationwide discussion on mental health via text. Participants met in groups of 4-5 to talk about the importance of mental health, their personal experiences, and what they could do to make a difference.

The initiative was designed to engage high school and college students in particular, using technology that is ubiquitous in their lives. Over 600 phones (and approx. 2,400 people) joined in to “Text, Talk, and Act” last Thursday.

NCDD is one of the organizing groups for Creating Community Solutions, and we contributed to this innovative project in several ways — including designing the infographic used to publicize the event!

Here’s a photo collage that one of our participant groups (the team @JCFNmemphis) submitted to us…

JCFN-MemphisThe discussion questions were designed to provide a safe space for candid dialogue on mental health, one of the most critical and misunderstood public issues we face. During the conversation, groups were asked to respond to polling questions related to mental health. Results from the live polling questions were tabulated almost instantly, so people could see how participants across the country responded.

Many of the participants reported that mental health is very important in their lives: 59% of respondents said that they thought about mental health every day and 69% said that it was extremely important to them.

During the conversation, participants discussed what schools and communities are doing well to support mental health. “Having understanding psychologists and social workers in the school systems really helps the students feel comfortable talking about their problems,” one participant answered. Other responses included support groups, open discussions, and early intervention. Some participants noted that we need more attention and programs to address mental health challenges: “In our community, no one is really trying anything. We think more legislators who are personally involved in actively caring for those with mental health issues need to be open advocates.”

The process also provided an opportunity for participants to discuss actions they can take to strengthen mental health on their campuses and in their communities. Some of the action ideas included starting nonprofits, raising awareness, and continuing the conversation on mental health in their school or community. Participants also noted that individual, everyday actions can make a difference as well: “Allow my actions to show I am someone who you can talk to when people need to.”

View more results from the polling questions and additional actions you can take at: www.creatingcommunitysolutions.org/texttalkact

We are also on Storify! Review the event here: http://bit.ly/TextTalkActStory

If you weren’t able to participate last week, you can now – we’ve left the texting platform open. Taking part is easy: just gather a few friends, colleagues, or fellow students, and text START to 89800 any time you like.

Help make this bigger and better by referring a friend, posting or tweeting about #texttalkact, and using the texting platform to suggest ways for us to improve the experience.

Thanks to everyone who participated last week, and keep texting, talking, and acting!

Group Decision Tip: Right to be wrong

Posted on by
Reply

In principle, in relations among equals, people have a right to be wrong.

Group Decision Tips IconOften it is only by being wrong for a while – trying on an opinion that doesn’t fit — that one comes to realize what is truly right. Without the freedom to be wrong one is often in tension, discontent with the present, wishing for a different way.

When I think you are wrong and I am right, the question is not “How can I make you change?” but rather, “Given our different opinions, how shall I move forward peacefully?”

Practical Tip: If we disagree and I think you are wrong and I am right, it works well for me to say my opinion but it doesn’t work well for me to talk down to you or think bad of you. It works well for me to hear your opinion with a genuine desire to understand but it doesn’t work well for me to shut you down or write you off.

Let us acknowledge our different opinions but move forward anyway. Rather than stall and fight, let us either live with our differing opinions for a while, try on more opinions, and continue our dialogue with mutual respect; or let us go our different ways in peace.

Just like you have a right to be wrong, so do I, and it works well to be always mindful that perhaps I am.