The Ironic effect of Deliberation

The ironic effect of deliberation: What We can (and Cannot) Expect in Deeply Divided Societies

Juan Esteban Ugarriza Uribe, Natalia Trujillo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

One of the foundational promises of deliberation in contemporary democracies was the transformation of citizen’s preferences by the force of the better arguments. However, deliberation has proved so far to be ineffective to promote inter-group changes for the better in terms of attitudes. As a result, evidence shows that even discussions lying relatively close to the theoretical ideal might nevertheless push changes in either a positive or a negative direction. We argue that deliberation lacks the necessary built-in mechanisms for constraining polarization and unleashing desired changes, particularly in deeply divided societies. Thus, efforts aimed at bridging divides between adversarial groups require the promotion of specific, empathy-generating discursive contents, which even highly deliberative debate cannot ensure. Based on two experimental studies, we show how deliberation and intergroup reconciliation operate through different mechanisms. While there is no reason to believe they are incompatible, it remains to be seen how they can be set in motion simultaneously
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
JournalActa Politica
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 16 2018

Fingerprint

deliberation
society
empathy
reconciliation
polarization
promotion
Group
democracy
citizen
lack
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{6fe94037f5e94476b0896305ffc53306,
title = "The Ironic effect of Deliberation: The ironic effect of deliberation: What We can (and Cannot) Expect in Deeply Divided Societies",
abstract = "One of the foundational promises of deliberation in contemporary democracies was the transformation of citizen’s preferences by the force of the better arguments. However, deliberation has proved so far to be ineffective to promote inter-group changes for the better in terms of attitudes. As a result, evidence shows that even discussions lying relatively close to the theoretical ideal might nevertheless push changes in either a positive or a negative direction. We argue that deliberation lacks the necessary built-in mechanisms for constraining polarization and unleashing desired changes, particularly in deeply divided societies. Thus, efforts aimed at bridging divides between adversarial groups require the promotion of specific, empathy-generating discursive contents, which even highly deliberative debate cannot ensure. Based on two experimental studies, we show how deliberation and intergroup reconciliation operate through different mechanisms. While there is no reason to believe they are incompatible, it remains to be seen how they can be set in motion simultaneously",
author = "{Ugarriza Uribe}, {Juan Esteban} and Natalia Trujillo",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1057/s41269-018-0113-1",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--21",
journal = "Acta Politica",
issn = "0001-6810",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Ironic effect of Deliberation

T2 - The ironic effect of deliberation: What We can (and Cannot) Expect in Deeply Divided Societies

AU - Ugarriza Uribe, Juan Esteban

AU - Trujillo, Natalia

PY - 2018/8/16

Y1 - 2018/8/16

N2 - One of the foundational promises of deliberation in contemporary democracies was the transformation of citizen’s preferences by the force of the better arguments. However, deliberation has proved so far to be ineffective to promote inter-group changes for the better in terms of attitudes. As a result, evidence shows that even discussions lying relatively close to the theoretical ideal might nevertheless push changes in either a positive or a negative direction. We argue that deliberation lacks the necessary built-in mechanisms for constraining polarization and unleashing desired changes, particularly in deeply divided societies. Thus, efforts aimed at bridging divides between adversarial groups require the promotion of specific, empathy-generating discursive contents, which even highly deliberative debate cannot ensure. Based on two experimental studies, we show how deliberation and intergroup reconciliation operate through different mechanisms. While there is no reason to believe they are incompatible, it remains to be seen how they can be set in motion simultaneously

AB - One of the foundational promises of deliberation in contemporary democracies was the transformation of citizen’s preferences by the force of the better arguments. However, deliberation has proved so far to be ineffective to promote inter-group changes for the better in terms of attitudes. As a result, evidence shows that even discussions lying relatively close to the theoretical ideal might nevertheless push changes in either a positive or a negative direction. We argue that deliberation lacks the necessary built-in mechanisms for constraining polarization and unleashing desired changes, particularly in deeply divided societies. Thus, efforts aimed at bridging divides between adversarial groups require the promotion of specific, empathy-generating discursive contents, which even highly deliberative debate cannot ensure. Based on two experimental studies, we show how deliberation and intergroup reconciliation operate through different mechanisms. While there is no reason to believe they are incompatible, it remains to be seen how they can be set in motion simultaneously

U2 - 10.1057/s41269-018-0113-1

DO - 10.1057/s41269-018-0113-1

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 21

JO - Acta Politica

JF - Acta Politica

SN - 0001-6810

ER -