By Logan Jain ’26

We hate silence. We play music while driving, turn the TV volume up when no one is in the room, and often whistle, sing, or even talk to ourselves while alone. But perhaps the silence that we hate the most occurs in social settings. The eerie silence that can consume a room full of people when no one knows what to say next. We find ourselves scrambling to break the silence, saying the first thing that comes to mind. Often, this manifests itself in a snide remark along the lines of “this is awkward.” The words we use to describe this silence (awkward, uncomfortable, etc.) demonstrate our inability, as a society, to embrace silence and the many positives that it allows for.

As a DCI facilitator, one of the first skills I had to learn was managing silence. Too much of it can stymie the flow of a deliberation and leave participants struggling to come up with meaningful contributions. Conversely, too little can turn a deliberation into a break-neck sprint, with participants unable to gather their thoughts and remain patient. But with the right balance, silence can enhance a deliberative experience for all participants without feeling “awkward” or “uncomfortable.”

Before I delve into the myriad ways that I believe silence can aid deliberation, I want to discuss my own relationship with silence. While not a Quaker myself, I spent all but 2 years of my K-12 education at Quaker institutions. Once a week, I would gather with the rest of my classmates in a large, chapel-like building (called a Meeting House) and sit in silence for an hour. This practice, known as Meeting for Worship, invites participants who feel moved to speak to do so by standing up and sharing their thoughts with the rest of the Meeting. In some Meetings, people share their thoughts every few minutes. In others, the silence remains unpenetrated for the duration of Worship. While my younger self was frequently annoyed and bored by having to sit in silence for such a long time, I believe that Meeting for Worship taught me the reflective and calming powers of silence.

I now want to posit what I see as the three main, although certainly not exhaustive, benefits that silence can provide to a deliberation. First, silence allows people to gather their thoughts. High-quality discourse relies on thoughtful opinions and contributions, and silence allows people to form their remarks appropriately. One of the central tenets of deliberation is the emphasis placed on listening to others, and so the only time in which one can devote all of their mental energy to their own contributions to the deliberation occurs during moments of silence. Additionally, by having a few extra seconds to develop their thoughts, participants are more likely to adhere to both the conversation agreements and deliberative dispositions, two foundational elements of the DCI’s deliberative practices.

Secondly, silence plays an important role in actively listening to and acknowledging the contributions of others. My 3rd-grade teacher would equate the vocal sharing of a thought in Meeting for Worship to dropping a stone onto a still lake. After the thought is shared, appropriate time must be given for the water ripples to cease and the lake to become still again before someone else stands up and shares. While deliberation has a different cadence, the sentiment holds. A brief (less than five seconds) moment of silence after a participant shares their thoughts gives the appropriate gravity to what was just said and allows other participants the opportunity to absorb the information or opinion that was shared.

Lastly, and most importantly, silence provides a natural space for reflective thought and an emotional pause if needed. Many of the topics that are deliberated on can be emotional for participants, particularly those with issue-specific experiences or identities. Little moments of silence throughout a deliberation allow participants to reflect on the conversation and what others have shared, while also providing an avenue to diffuse some of the emotional fervent that might build up throughout a deliberation.

While my education in silence was arduous at such a young age, I now understand just how critical it is to a successful deliberative enterprise. Next time you find yourself in one of those “awkward” moments of silence, I encourage you to lean into it. Use it to reflect on what others have shared, to collect your thoughts, or even to just take some deep breaths. Silence enables more intelligent, thoughtful, and impactful discourse — let’s work to embrace and destigmatize it.

Logan Jain ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Like so many of my peers, interacting in the Zoom space is nothing new to me. While the necessary constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic provided the initial introduction, I still regularly find myself on Zoom for a variety of reasons. Frequently, I’m thankful for the technological impact of Zoom, allowing me access to people and information that I might not otherwise be privy to.  

This was the case a few weeks ago when sickness prevented me from physically attending the DCI’s first facilitator training session of the year, but a well-integrated virtual option allowed me to still take part. A week later, no longer ill, I attended the second training session in-person. Each session featured a mock deliberation, and comparing my experience in this activity across the two mediums allowed me to think about the benefits and drawbacks of each as a conduit for constructive and meaningful deliberation.  

One of the stated goals of the DCI is to build community via deliberation. When we hear the word community, there can be an inclination to view it as rooted in a physical location (college community, neighborhood community, etc.). However, digital platforms disrupt this notion, allowing deliberative communities to form that transcend physical location.  

My deliberative group on Zoom was geographically diverse, and also more diverse along racial and generational lines than my in-person group.   

This was certainly no coincidence; the town of Davidson is over 85% white compared to a national average of 60%. And because of the College, most of my in-person group was composed of fellow students. Meaningful deliberation requires a diversity of viewpoints, and one way to increase that diversity is through participation from individuals with different life experiences, demographic backgrounds, and identities. The geographic segregation of America makes this difficult, but virtual engagement makes it more possible, allowing individuals to join the collective act of deliberation regardless of their location.   

Community-building also relies on the quality and authenticity of interaction. During my in-person mock deliberation, I found nuanced elements of human interaction, such as eye contact and body language, to be a critical part of this process. The conversation flowed in a manner that I hadn’t experienced on Zoom, and I left feeling a deeper connection to the individuals whom I deliberated with. 

Perhaps this was also a product of my concentration. On Zoom, I found it more challenging to feel actively engaged in the conversation as the effects of staring at a computer screen sapped my focus. Face-to-face, I was invigorated by the emotions of those around me and felt like it took far less effort to maintain a necessary level of engagement.  

Ultimately, rather than determine that one medium is unequivocally better than the other for deliberation, I came to the conclusion that each has its own strengths and weaknesses and has an important role in furthering the DCI’s mission. Some elements of the in-person experience that aid in building community are lost over Zoom. However, Zoom increases the accessibility of deliberation, exposing individuals to viewpoints that they might not otherwise encounter in their daily lives.  

From a pessimistic perspective, one could argue that something is lost in each medium. However, I prefer a more optimistic stance, appreciating each medium for the unique deliberative experience it has to offer. 

Note: The image above was generated by ChatGPT4.