Deliberation


 * Definition**

Deliberation has been defined as “the act of deliberating, or weighing, a thing in the mind; careful consideration with a view to decision” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The word is likely related to the Latin word dēlīberāre, and is thought to have first appeared in English during the fourteenth century (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). Hart & Dillard (2006) define deliberation as the act of “making firm decisions about uncertain matters” (n.p.). In popular and scholarly usage, deliberation has variously referred to the procedures of legislative bodies, the proceedings of forums such as committee hearings and public meetings, group and organizational decision making processes, acts and duties of citizenship, internet discourse, and theories of the public sphere.

As Hart & Dillard (2006) note, deliberation is inherently concerned with both the future and the present (n.p.) Because deliberation involves choosing among competing courses of action—such as public policy or matters of controversy—actors engaged in deliberation must always consider the implications of their discourse. Goodnight (1999) echoes this sentiment by placing deliberative argumentation within the realm of probable, rather than certain, knowledge (p. 251). However, deliberation is also a matter of processes and procedures; thus, it exists “in a perpetually evanescent state; it never fully gets it work done” (Hart & Dillard, 2006, n.p.). Etymological connections to the word “deliberate” imply the slow and careful nature of ideal deliberation (Oxford English Dictionary, 2015).


 * Deliberation and Democracy**

Deliberation is generally associated with democracy and democratic ideals. As Hart & Dillard (2006) note, deliberation “requires democracy for its perfectibility” and relies on democratic conditions such as the freedom of speech and transparency (n.p). Arguably, deliberation cannot exist outside of democratic systems. Thus, when democratic conditions are strong, deliberation tends to be strong and vice-versa (Hart & Dillard, 2006, n.p.). Deliberation itself is often positioned as a fundamental resource for liberal-pluralist democracy. Asen (2013) contends that deliberation can bind together diverse societies, "where people need to justify to each other their publically-articulated values, interests, identities, and goals" (p. 3). Similarly, Hicks (2002) summarizes the promises of deliberative democracy as equality, inclusion, and reason (p. 224).

Recent interdisciplinary scholarship surrounding so-called “deliberative democracy” has united a concern for effective deliberation with democratic principles. Such scholarship has also asked normative questions about what deliberation//should//look like under ideal conditions (Steffensmeier & Schenck-Hamlin, 2008). As Hogan & Tell (2006) note, for many scholars, the study of deliberative democracy has become a “search for rules” that aim to foster productive democratic engagement. However, many have argued that theorizing such “rules” runs the danger of excluding or marginalizing participants (Hogan & Tell, 2006; see also Roberts-Mitchell, 2005). Deliberative democracy has also been critiqued for failing to account for the political dimension of democratic life (see Mouffe, 1999, p. 746).


 * Deliberation and the Public Sphere**

Theories of the public sphere have fostered vigorous debate over the extent to which deliberation should be guided by normative frameworks. Central to this debate has been the work of Jürgen Habermas. In//The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,//Habermas (1991) famously theorized a set of “institutional criteria” for historical sites of deliberation. These included the assembly of private individuals, a separation from the state, inclusiveness, and a commitment to rationality (Habermas, 1991, pp. 36-38).

Some scholars have criticized Habermas’ work for presumably reifying a set of norms for public deliberation that have historically excluded participants based on marginalized characteristics such as gender, race, or class (Fraser, 1992, p. 115; Fraser, 2007), Others have critiqued the Habermasian tradition for relying too heavily on rules of rational objectivity. For example, Mouffe (1999) critiques Habermas’ celebration of rational-critical deliberation, arguing that we must “give up the dream of a rational consensus as well as the fantasy that we could escape from our human form of life” (p. 750).


 * Deliberation in Communication**

In the communication discipline, deliberation has been studied by scholars examining political communication, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, communication technology, and rhetoric.

In political and interpersonal communication, some scholars have theorized rule-bound deliberation in opposition to “informal” political conversation (Eveland, Morey & Hutchens, 2011). Viewing these two kinds of political behaviors as conceptually distinct, Eveland, Morey & Hutchens (2011) ask whether political conversation can “live up to the standards” of deliberation (p. 1084). Other work has studied the empirical conditions of deliberative venues, using a variety of methods such as content analysis and quantitative measures (i.e. Steffensmeier & Schenck-Hamlin, 2008).

Other scholars have studied deliberation in old and new media and asked whether these technologies can enable more productive deliberation. Mortenson (1968) refutes charges that television reduces the potential for substantive deliberation. The Internet, however, has occupied most scholarly attention in this area. For example, Dahlberg (2001) argues that the Internet offers citizens renewed opportunities to participate in deliberation in such venues as Usenet groups, e-mail lists, online forums, and digital citizenship initiatives. However, online deliberation still faces significant challenges such as the fragmentation of online communities, and a lack of access to the Internet by marginalized groups (Dahlberg, 2001, p. 618-623). Weger & Aakhus (2003) contend that the discourse on online forums tends to fall short of ideals of critical discussion, but this discourse can still be seen as a productive argumentative dialogue (p. 34).


 * Deliberation in Rhetoric**

Deliberation features prominently in Aristotle’s writings on rhetoric (Hart & Dillard, 2006, n.p.). Aristotle argues that deliberation is one of the three genres of rhetoric, one that focuses on the future, and is concerned with five topics: 1)Ways and means, 2)War and peace, 3)National defense, 4)Imports and exports, and 5)Legislation. Deliberative discourse also played a crucial role in Rome and features in several prominent moments of the history of rhetoric (Farnsworth, 1996).

In contemporary rhetorical theory, some scholars have critiqued the Habermasian tradition of deliberation for its emphasis on rationality, rules, and objectivity. Such scholars have argued that an emphasis on rationality in deliberation crowds out rhetoric’s place in public discourse and have contested theories of deliberation that view it in opposition to rhetoric (see for example: Britt, 2009; Ivie, 1998 Ivie, 2002; Mouffe, 1999).

According to Murphy (2005), “to deliberate ... is to engage the community in the exercise of political judgment. Those judgments work the middle ground, that place without clear laws of conduct, between universal and particular, end and mean, chance and necessity” (p. 661). This definition implies a notion of deliberation not governed by rules; one that occurs when a speaker invites the audience into the deliberative process of making political judgments.

Ivie (2002) calls for “rhetorical deliberation” and argues that consensus-based, rational-critical deliberation is inherently exclusionary and undermines pluralism in democratic politics. Ivie (2002) notes that “deliberative theorists would exclude rhetoric from the political realm altogether” in a quest for dispassionate rational debate, and calls on scholars to make space for deliberation characterized by “boisterous disagreement,” pluralism, and dissent (p. 277). Rhetorical scholars focused on deliberation reemphasize the importance of rhetoric for deliberative practice, and this is given particular importance in the captious policy debates over topics such as education policy (Asen, 2013) and gun control (Hogan & Rood, 2015).

Written by Paul McKean (August 2012). Minor revisions by Donovan Bisbee (2015)

include component="comments" page="page:Deliberation" limit="10"


 * References**

Asen, R. (2013). Deliberation and trust. //Argumentation and Advocacy 50//, 2-17.

Britt, E. C. (2009). Dangerous deliberation: subjective probability and rhetorical democracy in the jury room.//Rhetoric Society Quarterly,//39(2), 103-123.

Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere.//Information, Communication and Society,//4(4), 615-633.

Deliberation. (2015) In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from [|http://dictionary.oed.com]

Eveland, W.P., Morey, A.C., & Hutchens, M.J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: new directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. //Journal of Communication,//61, 1082-1103.

Farnsworth, R. (1996). Contextualizing the Pliny/Trajan letters: A case for critiquing the (American) myth of deliberative discourse in Roman society. //Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26//, 29-46.

Fraser, N. (1992). Sex, lies, and the public sphere: Some reflections on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. //Critical Inquiry, 18//, 595-612.

Fraser, N. (2007). Trasnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. //Theory, Culture, & Society 24// (4), 7-30.

Goodnight, G.T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: a speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. //Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18//, 214-227.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hart, R.P. & Dillard, C.L. (2006). Deliberative genre. In Sloane, T.O. (Ed.),//Encyclopedia of////rhetoric//(e-reference edition). Oxford University Press.

Hicks, D. (2002). The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. //Rhetoric & Public Affairs//, //5//, 223-260.

Hogan, J.M. & Rood, C. (2015). Rhetorical studies and the gun debate: A public policy perspective. //Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 18//, 359-372.

Hogan, J.M. & Tell, D. (2006). Demagoguery and democratic deliberation: the search for rules of discursive engagement.//Rhetoric & Public Affairs,//9, 479-487.

Ivie, R.L. (1998). Democratic deliberation in a rhetorical republic. //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84//, 491-530.

Ivie, R.L. (2002). Rhetorical deliberation and democratic politics in the here and now.//Rhetoric////& Public Affairs,//5, 277-285.

Mortensen, D. C. (1968). The influence of television on policy discussion. //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54,// 277-281.

Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?//Social Research,//66(3), 745-758.

Murphy, J.M. (2005). To form a more perfect union: Bill Clinton and the art of deliberation.//Rhetoric & Public Affairs//, 8(4), 657-678.

Parry-Giles, T. (2010). Resisting a “treacherous piety”: issues, images, and public policy deliberation in presidential campaigns.//Rhetoric & Public Affairs,//13(1), 37-64.

Pfau, M.W. (2007). Who’s afraid of fear appeals? Contingency, courage, and deliberation in rhetorical theory and practice.//Philosophy and Rhetoric//, 40(2), 216-237.

Roberts-Mitchell, P. (2005). Democracy, demagoguery, and critical rhetoric.//Rhetoric & Public////Affairs.//8(3), 459-76.

Steffensmeier, T. & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (2008). Argument quality in public deliberations.//Argumentation and Advocacy, 45,//21-36.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: a coding scheme.//Journal of Public////Deliberation,//3(1), 1-35.

Tutui, V. (2012). How should we deliberate? Between the argumentative and the representative dimensions of democratic deliberation.//Argumentum Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory & Rhetoric,//10(1), 71-81.

Weger, H. & Aakhus, M. (2003). Arguing in internet chat rooms: Argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance. //Argumentation and Advocay, 40//, 23-38.

Wright, S. (2011). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.//New Media & Society,//14(2), 244-261.