What Does Deliberation Accomplish?

Deliberative theorists seem to face increased pressure to argue that their approach has value. I suppose all who advocate for specific realizations of democracy have this obligation, but – there seems to be less of a demand for, say, get out the vote organizations to prove the worth of their mission.

I suppose that voting as a democratic tool is commonly accepted to be of use. Therefore, getting more people to vote is good, and the only question left for a GOTV organization is whether they are effective at increasing the vote. Specific interests may, of course. also question what kind of vote these organizations are turning out – accusing them of being too partisan or, perhaps, not partisan enough.

But those questions are secondary. They come after accepting the basic premise of the mission: voting is good.

Deliberation has a harder battle. Perhaps it is good but wildly impractical. Perhaps it can be good, but generally doesn’t give a meaningful return for the amount of time and effort that needs to be put into it.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that deliberation, if it could be ideally realized, would be bad, but there seems to be enough standing between this ideal and reality that deliberation is constantly called upon to defend its very existence.

So what does deliberation, real-world deliberation, accomplish? Why does it have value?

There are a number of ways to tackle this question. At the most utilitarian level, deliberation can result in decisions or concrete action.

If there’s an issue in our community, we can deliberate about it. By pooling our knowledge and resources we can ensure that we are making a well informed decision, and by doing it collaboratively we ensure buy-in from stakeholders and legitimacy for the final decision. One can still quibble over whether deliberation is the most efficient way to achieve that outcome, but when deliberation results in tangible action, it seems easy to argue that it is effective.

Another value of deliberation might be seen in communities with deep divisions. While deliberation here may not result in concensus – imagine a community far too divided for that – it may still demonstrate its value as a bridge between communities and a tool for de-escalating tensions.

The Public Conversations Project, for example, specializes in highly structured dialogues within divided communities. They worked with both pro-life and pro-choice groups in Boston after a series of bombings of abortion clinics. Their dialogues didn’t change anyone’s stance on the issue, but it re-humanized both sides to each other and created a joint force that could collectively speak out against the attacks. Similar approaches have been used around topics of same-sex marriage and immigration, and have been utilized as part of truth and reconciliation committees.

Such outcomes aren’t quite as concrete as a collective decision or collective action, but they are still somewhat tangible and a sign of progress in some of the most challenged communities.

I am interested in the argument after that.

What is the value of deliberation that does not result in a decision? In communities without such paralyzing divides?

Implicit in the argument in favor of deliberation is the idea that a community is more than the sum of its parts. That deliberation makes me better, it makes you better, and it makes our community better. A healthy community is one in which residents are in constant deliberation – where they may occasionally use the tool for moments of decision making, but where deliberation is more deeply a way of life.

I’m not sure how to better articulate that and I’m not sure how to quantify that. I find this sentiment hinted out throughout the deliberation literature, but little seems to tackle this question head on.

I am increasingly convinced that deliberation does have this intrinsic value – that it more than just a glorified aggregation tool – but it’s hard to demonstrate that outcome.

Deliberation research shows that participants can be more knowledgable after deliberation, that they may change their opinions after deliberation, and that the process of deliberation may serve as an equalizer between people of different levels of class and education.

But I feel like there’s something still missing from this proof. That ephemeral value of deliberation that makes the whole better as well as the individual, that transforms the way a person acts and the way people act together.

Deliberation does have value. The question is how to measure it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

10 Tips for Better Attendance at Engagement Events

Getting people to show up for public engagement events is a struggle many of us face in this field. But the great team of folks at NCDD member organization Everyday Democracy has years of experience hosting engagement events, and they recently published a list of tips for generating more turnout. We encourage you to read their strategies below or find their original piece here.


Where Did All the People Go? One Reason You’re Getting Low Turnout at Community Engagement Events and 10 Things You Can Do About It
EvDem Logo

If you’ve ever organized or attended a community event like a town hall meeting, a meet and greet with your lawmaker or a public forum and were surprised that not many people showed up, you’re not alone.

It sometimes seems like people are too busy or don’t care enough to take action. That’s probably true for some people. But for others, they’re tired of spending their time in programs or at events where people don’t value their opinion. They don’t want to participate in something that has a low chance of making any difference. No one does.

Unfortunately, traditional methods of engagement have gotten a bad reputation. Once people have participated in a poorly run event or community engagement program, they’re not likely to come back.

When you’re trying to mobilize people to become more engaged in their community, you have to overcome the negative connotation associated with public participation. It sounds like an impossible task to overcome this kind of barrier, but it can be done.

The good news is, when people get a taste of another form of engagement, they’ll want more. That means more people will want to participate again, tell their friends about it, and even volunteer to help coordinate the next program or event. It means you’ll be able to host a program or event that engages the community and see the room filled with people wanting to take part in creating change.

Here 10 ideas for how you can get started:

1. Acknowledge that some people may not have had a positive experience with public participation.

Whether your program or event builds on an existing form of engagement or you’re trying something new, preconceptions may affect your outcome. Now that you’ve recognized this reality, you’ll be able to take steps to build a good reputation for this kind of work.

2. Think like a skeptic when you are creating your messages and marketing materials.

What would you say to someone who has participated in the past and had a bad experience? How is your program or event different? People need to know that your way of engaging the community will be different, so let them know!

3. Invite people who haven’t been invited before or who don’t often attend community events.

The demographics of our communities are changing, and unfortunately the leadership doesn’t always reflect the diversity of our communities. Be intentional about reaching out to different groups in your community, especially ones who are underrepresented. Having those diverse voices, opinions, and ideas will make your event and your community stronger.

4. Start small.

Changing people’s perceptions won’t happen overnight.  Start with small events or activities and work up to a larger event if that’s your goal. Try things like incorporating engagement activities into your workplace or hosting sample dialogues at various existing community programs to start building a positive reputation.

5. Try different ways of engaging the community.

There is no one size fits all for any community or situation. Try different engagement processes or programs and adapt them to fit your unique needs.

6. Focus on quality.

When people participate in a well-run event or program, you’ll start to build a positive reputation for your organization, for the events you host, and for community engagement in general. Participants will recommend your event to their friends the next time around – that’s the best kind of outreach you can have.

7. Show participants that you value their opinion.

The best way to do this is to truly listen to what they have to say and to take action as a result of their participation. For example, if you’re inviting the community to talk about the city budget, perhaps the community can decide how to allocate a certain amount of funds. Even if the community is only able to influence a small percentage of the total budget, if they have a positive experience with the process then it will increase their respect and trust for the difficult decisions city officials have to make. Another option is to ensure that the city mayor is present in the conversations and will truly listen and take into consideration the community’s concerns. Whether or not people have a direct impact on decision-making, they want to know that their time, experiences and opinions are valued.

8. Get creative and make it fun.

People want to spend their free time doing something they enjoy. Think about how you can make your program or event something that people of all ages will want to attend. Food, entertainment, and activities for children are great additions to a more traditional program.

9. Keep track of what you’re learning about your community.

Test different locations, times of day, types of events, length of commitment, online and offline options, etc. Keep note of what works and what doesn’t so you can improve each time you ask the public to participate.

10. Share what you’ve learned with others.

We’ll be able to create stronger communities if we share what we’ve learned with each other.  Write an email, blog post or report with your findings to distribute with your network.

You can find the original version of this Everyday Democracy piece at www.everyday-democracy.org/news/where-did-all-people-go-one-reason-you%E2%80%99re-getting-low-turnout-community-engagement-events-and.

PACE Webinar on America’s Civic Renewal Movement

Today, Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) hosted a webinar on “America’s Civic Renewal Movement.” I was a speaker along with:

  • Eric Liu, Citizen University
  • Kelly Born, Hewlett Foundation
  • Joan Blades, Living Room Conversations
  • Kristen Cambell, PACE

Archives:

Webinar Description: A recently released paper, “America’s Civic Renewal Movement,” explores current sentiments toward civic engagement and identifies opportunities and challenges to expanding our civic infrastructure. This webinar explored philanthropy’s role in supporting and engaging in this movement, and how practitioners perceive foundations’ willingness to partner on these efforts.

 

The Morality of Meursault

I recently finished re-reading The Stranger, a novel which, judging by the MBTA pass I found folded in the pages, I last read in 2006. Like much of Camus’ work I could read the novel again and again. Every time I find something new.

The story is told from the detached prospective of Meursault, a passive hero who one day shoots and kills an unnamed Arab. Why he does this he could not say. It just all plays out, between the sky and the sea.

Meursault is sentenced to death. He does not repent, but he does find peace, having laid his “heart open to the benign indifference of the universe.” In the end, he declares, “all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.”

No matter how many times I read The Stranger, I’m not quite sure what to make of Meursault.

He is not a good person, to be sure, but – he’s not quite the bad person the story condemns him for.

That is to say – Meursault killed a man. Without cause or reason. That is almost certainly immoral. But his victim is never named, only referred to generally: “the Arab.” Throughout The Stranger the racism of French Algiers is clear – characters who are described as “Arab” or “moorish” are consistently belittled by their aristocratic French peers.

No one in the book seems to care that much that a man has died.

Indeed, rather than focus on the crime of a life that was taken, Meursault’s trial focuses the natural death of his mother. He is derided as a monster not because he committed murder, but because he didn’t love his mother – or perhaps, more plainly, because he didn’t display the expected affection for his mother.

Most of the characters in The Stranger are not good people. But unlike Meursault, they know their place in society and play their part well.

Ultimately, The Stranger is an exercise in a seeming problem of absurdism: if nothing matters, if there is no God, and we are each free agents of our own will – what’s to stop anyone from committing murder? Can there be morality under such a regime?

This is a challenge that comes from nihilism – as Nietzsche quotes in On the Genealogy of Morals, “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus rejects the common interpretation of that statement, arguing: “Everything is permitted does not mean that nothing is forbidden.”

One can interpret that on entirely practical grounds. While perhaps we don’t have standing to sit in moral judgement over Meursault, we still ought to have laws forbidding murder. If a society permitted murder, moral or not, it would be chaos.

I’m not convinced that’s what Camus means, and I’m not convinced he intends for readers to pardon Meursault.

Again in thMyth of Sisyphus, Camus quotes Dostoevsky’s Kirilov saying, “everything is permitted.”

Camus counters: “The essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask: ‘what does that prove?'”

Camus goes on to write: “All is well, everything is permitted, and nothing is hateful – these are absurd judgements. But what an amazing creating in which those creatures of fire and ice seem so familiar to us. The passionate world of indifference that rumbles in their hearts does not seem at all monstrous to us.”

Passionate indifference. Fire and ice. Camus’ writing is full of such seemingly conflicting metaphors. He describes Sisyphus as “powerless and rebellious.”

These things may seeem to be contradictions, but to Camus they are not. These seemingly contradictory sentiments are at the heart of absurdism.

Thus Camus disparages Man’s right to sit in judgement of man – Meursault imagines his jurors as passengers on a bus. Camus disparages God’s ability to sit in judgement of man – Meursault yells at the chaplain that he has committed no ‘sin’, only a criminal offense. All men are condemned, he argues.

While the logical conclusion of this seems to indicate that Meursault has committed no wrong, I’m not convinced that’s what he meant. Even if he did nothing wrong, that doesn’t mean he was right.

Everything is permitted does not mean that nothing is forbidden. We are free to live and act however we choose, with neither god nor man sitting in judgement of us. But there is still a certain morality, contradictory and ephemeral, that tells us Meursault is wrong. We can not prove it, we cannot define it, but we know that what he did was wrong.

Thus despite the absurdity of life, despite the seeming contradictions, Camus can conclude that “all is well.” And, as he writes, that remark is sacred.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Join the National Deliberation on Health Care Costs

Three of our long-time NCDD member organizations – the National Issues Forums Institute, Kettering Foundation, and Public Agenda – are teaming up to host a national deliberation around health care issues, and NCDD members are invited to join them! The deliberation will produce a report for policymakers next year that could have a real impact. You can learn more about this collaborative project in the NIFI blog post below or by finding the original post here.


You’re Invited – Join a National Deliberation Project about Healthcare Costs

NIF logoYou are invited to help your group, organization, or community join a national deliberation project about possible directions in healthcare costs. This is a special opportunity to help forum participants be heard in a national report that will be prepared by the Kettering Foundation and Public Agenda, and presented to policymakers in May 2016.

For a limited time, the issue guide titled Health Care: How Can We Reduce Costs and Still Get the Care We Need? is available as a FREE download to use at your forums. Companion materials include: a moderator’s guide (free download), a post-forum questionnaire (free download), a preview of a video overview of the issue (watch online for free), and a full length DVD video overview of the issue (order for $6.00 plus shipping).

Please join this national effort by planning to hold at least one forum; posting your forum information in the Events section of the National Issues Forums (NIF) website; and having each forum participant complete a post-forum questionnaire and then return all questionnaires to the address provided.

Public Agenda is encouraging conveners and moderators to audiotape or videotape their forums (a cell phone recording would be fine) if possible, and to send the recordings to Public Agenda. A transcript will be made and a copy returned to the forum conveners. No participants or exact locations will be named in information derived from recordings. Conveners are encouraged to hold forums prior to March 2016, and to return questionnaires (free to download here) by May 2016. For questions about this project, or about recording or reporting on forums, contact Chloe Rinehart at crinehart@publicagenda.org or 212-686-6610, extension 143.

Thank you for your interest in helping people deliberate about this important issue.

More information about issue guide materials here.

You can find the original version of this NIFI blog post at www.nifi.org/en/groups/youre-invited-join-national-deliberation-project-about-healthcare-costs-free-materials.

‘We’re Number 10!’ Reasons the U.S. Is Losing Ground

The United States for so long has been a champion of innovation, but because of powerful special interests and also because of some unwise reasons, we are losing a great deal of ground. When I was growing up, we would hear chants that “We’re Number 1!” especially around the time of the Olympics. Americans were proud. We thought, whether rightly or not, that we were or had the best of everything that counted. Travel abroad offers reason for humility. I found a striking example when I visited Germany this past August. There were solar panels everywhere.

German field of solar panels.

The U.S. is known for innovation for a number of reasons. The first is that early on the country was guided by a pioneer spirit. While Europe was strongly controlled by longstanding conventions, in the Americas, so many things were new. Much of the countryside was “wild,” a characteristic that was harmful when ascribed to the native peoples. Considering the wilderness of forests, bears, and other things that could kill you, there was much to do to survive. Innovations were necessary.

Photo of a telegraph controller. Beyond that, as de Tocqueville and later Max Weber pointed out (no relation, by the way), America had an industrious spirit and brought a Protestant work ethic to its industries. While the U.S. had its many troubling capitalist robber barons, it also has long been a land of invention and creativity. It’s remarkable how many inventions came from the United States, like the light bulb, the telegraph, and the telephone.

When you consider that the United States invented the automobile, it seems sad that Ford Motor Company failed to innovate and anticipate the changing market for fuel. With increasing gas prices, which of course fluctuate, demand naturally has risen for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. My wife and I bought a Prius. It has a 10 gallon tank of gas, or thereabouts. That might seem small. On that 10 or 11 gallon tank, we can drive 5.5 – 6 hours from Oxford, MS to Altanta, GA. True story. We get there needing to fill up soon, but we get there (I’ve got family there, so we’ve done it several times).

A grey hummer, 2007.It’s no secret that the supply of oil in the world is a limited resource. If there’s any debate about it, the real question is when exactly we’ll have reached peak production that will then inevitably decline. There’s no doubt about the inevitability, just about when we’ll start to feel it. Even if it seems far off, we know that prices will rise again in our future. That’s a force for leading the market to want more efficient cars and sources of energy. Besides, why spend more on getting from A to B? Some people conspicuously consume gas, proud of the Hummers. Hell, I’d love to drive over something in one of those too. When I drive to Atlanta, however, I’ll get there a whole lot faster (not having to stop) and more cheaply if I can take a Prius.

In light of America’s history of innovation, it was a sad moment when Ford and the auto industry in the U.S. had to be bailed out during the financial crisis. The U.S. Government, which means you and me, bailed out the auto industry to the tune of nearly $80 Billion (yes, with a B). Much of that was recovered eventually, which is the good news, but we saw a loss of $9 Billion dollars that weren’t recovered. Why was there such a failure? Despite clear evidence that the market wanted more fuel efficient cars, Ford and others kept building sport utility vehicles. While Japan and South Korea made money hand over fist on fuel efficient cars, like the Prius, our auto industry defiantly rejected the idea that Americans cared about issues like the environment or fuel costs. You and I paid for that.

German town with solar panels on the houses.In August of this year, when Annie and I visited Germany, we took a train from Munich to Regensburg, in Bavaria, and then another from Regensburg to Berlin. First of all, the U.S. really needs to catch up on train infrastructure. Trains are awesome, even if one leg of our trip had its problems. So do highways (traffic, accidents, etc). As we went through the German countryside, we saw small towns in which houses had solar panels all over them.

The featured image in this post is an aerial view of something we saw in a lot of fields on our trip – solar energy farming. Germany is establishing the infrastructure, the technology, the expertise, and the innovation for new ways of harvesting energy, and they’re way ahead of the U.S. We’ll eventually be buying their tech, hiring their experts. The U.S. has been ridiculous about energy, perhaps because of Gore’s efforts to get people to care about global warming — if one party is more vocal on an issue, it must be a controversial matter, right? Wrong (If you’re a skeptic, be a smart one and read the 2014 IPCC report. Otherwise you don’t know what you’re talking about). Another reason is that the U.S. is an oil producer, so folks might think that it’s a bad thing to go after the renewables for that reason. That doesn’t make any sense of course. There were plenty of candle makers when Edison invented the lightbulb.

Man starting a car with a crank.To anyone who says “Yeah, but solar panels are not so efficient and can’t replace yada yada…” Come on. The early automobile wasn’t perfect either. The glass would cut into you if it shattered. You had to crank the damned thing to get it started, while standing outside of the vehicle, etc. You don’t see advocates for the horse and carriage today. Problems or needs for efficiency and enhancement are precisely the places where the Germans are going to innovate and we’re going to give them our money and follow their lead. This isn’t the attitude of a nation that wants to be #1. It’s lazy and shortsighted.

American reluctance to dive into renewable energies is burying our heads in the sand. It’s counter to the American spirit of innovation. It’s also not wise in business terms. The defiant attitude that leads some people irrationally to dislike fuel efficient cars, solar panels, and preference for investing public funds in energy innovation over extensions of our eventual end of our oil abundance is precisely the reason why Zakaria said we’re living in a Post American World. Another reason is that the rest of the world is getting wise and “rising.” We’ll have oil for quite some time, but responsible people care about their grandkids, even when they don’t have them yet.

A small German city with panels on rooves.It’s time for the U.S. to snap out of this silliness and to want to be number 1 again, especially in terms of smart innovation.

P.S. If you enjoyed this piece, check out my earlier one called “Greening Industries and Green Industries in Mississippi.”

Eric Thomas Weber is associate professor of public policy leadership at the University of Mississippi, expressing only his own point of view. He is the author of Uniting Mississippi: Democracy and Leadership in the South (2015). Follow him on Twitter and “like” his Facebook page

What Should Go on the Internet: Privacy, Freedom and Security Online (NIFI Issue Guide)

The National Issues Forums Institute published the 12-page Issue Guide, What Should Go on the Internet: Privacy, Freedom and Security Online (2013) and is an update to an earlier guide about the Internet. This guide is designed to help facilitate balanced deliberation about what should go on the internet.

From the guide…

NIFI_Internet2013The same Internet that has given us new ways to socialize, learn, and engage in civic life has also given criminals new avenues to steal from us and scam us, often using information gleaned from public government documents now posted online. And because no one’s in charge, there’s no single authority we can call to complain.

When does our personal information become public? What data collection is acceptable? Should there be limits on what we can do online? It’s time to find a way to balance our needs to safeguard privacy, preserve free speech, and ensure security for all our citizens, young and old.

It’s time to answer the question: What should go on the Internet?

This issue guide was prepared for the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) in collaboration with the Kettering Foundation, and is an updated version (2013) of a previous guide about the Internet.

This issue guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: “Protect Individual Privacy”
Privacy is a fundamental American value. But the Internet has obliterated the line between public and private, forcing Americans to live in a virtual fishbowl. Our top priority must be to safeguard personal information on the Internet.

Option Two: “Promote Freedom of Speech and Commerce”
The Internet is a revolutionary leap forward for democratic societies and free markets. Direct or indirect censorship by concerned citizens, special interests, or government could stifle this great resource.

Option Three: “Secure Us from Online Threats”
The Internet is a Wild West of criminal activity that threatens our personal safety, our economic vitality, and our national security. Our top priority must be protecting our children and ourselves.

More about the NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Issue Guides are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). All NIFI Issue Guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/what-should-go-internet-2013