Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

The DCI Blog

Commons Conversation with Chris Clunie

by

Chris-Clunie-Commons-Conversation-Flyer

Next week, the DCI concludes our Spring 2024 Commons Conversations program with special guest, VP and Director of Athletics Chris Clunie! Davidson students, join us Thursday, April 25th at 11:10 AM in the Annex at Vail Commons for a conversation about “Sports Betting: What are the Issues?” Seats are limited, so register on WildcatSync today!

Commons Conversations is a series of deliberative chats over lunch at Vail Commons and is open to all Davidson students. We have invited five faculty and staff members to host these conversations on topics relevant to their academic or professional expertise. At each session, these conversation hosts will briefly introduce the topic of conversation and share a few of their own insights on it. Students joining the lunch will then have an opportunity to discuss the topic with one another and the host in a conversation guided by our DCI Fellows, who are trained deliberation facilitators.

We hope to see you there!

Refresh Your Feed & Your Perspective

by

A balance scale sitting on a table.

Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Fellow)

When we go to restaurants, some of us like steaks, some prefer salads, and some opt for the pasta. News consumption, for most of us, is the same way. We may know people who stick to their BBC, but we may also have friends who prefer the more politically aligned publications such as Jacobin magazine or The American Conservative. But unlike our ways of developing taste and preference for certain culinary consumption habits–trying different items on the menu, comparing calories, examining ingredients–we often do not, or cannot, hold our news sources to the same level of scrutiny.

Social media algorithms, influential people in our lives, and personal biases may lead us to consume one news source or one-sided sources excessively, leading us to neglect the alternative options and miss out on the variety of flavors of coverage on the same events and topics that are out there. We feel confident in our food preferences because we try different options and determine what best suits our personal tastes. With news, we often stick with what we know or what supports our opinions and appears in our search and social media feeds: we have no clue what other options are available to us. Our frequently misguided, or surface-level evaluations of our news sources, pose threats to our abilities to identify media biases and to gain accurate views of perspectives news sources can distort to serve an ulterior agenda.

In our most recent DCI fellows’ cohort meeting, with help from Jayme Sponsel and Davidson’s E.H. Little Library resource website, we evaluated and discussed methods of combating this dilemma, empowering us to diversify our media tastes in order to improve resource awareness and understandings of the varieties of resources and their respective values. As a part of our discussion, we had the opportunity to evaluate our own news feeds and learn about valuable resources designed to inform us on their biases, offering a variety of perspectives to utilize in bolstering our news consumption.

Two resources that allowed me to both identify the biases in sources I did not anticipate and offered a variety of perspective sources I had not been exposed to before were the Interactive Media Bias Chart and AllSides.com. The chart and AllSides offer a trove of sources along with reliable information on their accuracy and political biases. Immediately, the resources offered analyses of news outlets which made me more aware of even slight bias which may influence reporting. These new resources have allowed me to look for a certain left or right tilt in the sources I consume, and also to understand how much of my newsfeed comes from one side’s perspective versus the others.

That’s not the only takeaway from these sources. With this new awareness I can add the variety my information feed, for whatever reason, was lacking. Without the awareness of other options, I would have never made the alterations to my feed this resource has allowed me to begin making. I now subscribe to more newsletters and follow more social media accounts from resources I disagree with. I may be upset by the content they produce, even incensed by the more opposing stories from the side I don’t align with. But that’s a good thing.

Before, only consuming news more aligned with my views because of the ways social media and influences in my life have led me to gravitate towards these sources, I had an extremely simplistic view of other sides and their views. The new variety populating my feed has offered me a far deeper understanding of different perspectives, being that they come from people who actually hold those views rather than those who either seek to discredit or hold implicit biases against them.

Balancing your feed with both an accurate and balanced array of perspective media allows you to be informed in ways only viewing your “side’s” content could never achieve. Much like knowing what you prefer and why at a restaurant, because of your experience and knowledge of other items on the menu, you cannot have fully formed opinions or clear connection to a perspective until you have sought out other perspectives, especially conflicting ones.

Until you have taken the time to listen to and understand the other side, whether through conversation with people or news consumption, you never really know where you stand on an issue. You only think you know because people and sources you generally agree with tell you that a certain stance is the “correct” one. Only after you can compare different arguments can you truly reason through an issue and choose a side, much like you only know what to order at a restaurant after you peruse the menu and compare items. Weighing arguments and an array of information allows us to fully deliberate internally on an issue and understand which stance most closely supports our core values.

Who knows? Balancing your feed may even lead to forming new perspectives and opinions you would never expect to hold. The best foodies like to scan every page of the menu when they eat out, and because of this they are always sure of what they want. And now I can say I share their confidence in my political perspectives due to my new news awareness and motivation to balance my newsfeed because I have accessed arguments from a variety of sources, been exposed to different opinions, and subsequently undergone the deliberative consideration necessary to determine which stances to take based on what sides align with my values.

We don’t have to switch sides or only consume news from one type of source. But taking the steps to understand perspectives from across the spectrum allows us to form insights at a deeper level than otherwise possible. At the very least, a balanced news feed allows one to gain confidence in their own views, thanks to taking the steps to sample the alternatives. You can’t be sure you disagree with someone or a political stance until you truly know what they believe.

Perspectives and Pitfalls: Deliberative Democracy Through a Nietzschean Lens

by

A round table of politicians with a surrounding audience.

Shahin Ahmadi ’24 (DCI Fellow)

In the realm of political philosophy, deliberative democracy has long been hailed as a beacon of reason and good collective decision-making. It posits that rational deliberation among citizens can lead to better, more just decisions. However, when we turn to Friedrich Nietzsche’s unconventional and often controversial philosophy, as laid out in works such as Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, we are met with a provocative critique that challenges some of the foundational principles of deliberative democracy, and in doing so, forces us to confront and contend with some of the challenges of this framework.

One of Nietzsche’s primary critiques is that deliberative democracy may operate under the illusion of rationality. Deliberation presupposes that, through reasoned argument and debate, a group of citizens can arrive at a rational consensus. Nietzsche, however, would argue that such rationality is a façade. His philosophy is grounded in perspectivism, the notion that all knowledge is influenced by individual perspectives and biases. In this light, deliberation may merely serve as a platform for the expression of various wills to power, often masquerading as objective reason.

On top of his skepticism of the alleged rationality of the deliberative practice, Nietzsche’s concern with the manipulation of discourse and language emerges as another point of contention. His critique specifically targets how language and discourse can be wielded as instruments of power, shaping public opinion not through the merit of ideas but through persuasive rhetoric and emotional appeal. In a deliberative democracy, where persuasive argumentation is paramount, the potential for manipulation and the undue influence of eloquent speakers skilled in rhetoric should not be dismissed. This Nietzschean cynicism impels us to question whether the deliberative discourse is truly as bona fide and impartial as it purports to be.

Deliberative democracy’s penchant for consensus and majority rule also comes under Nietzschean scrutiny. Nietzsche coined the term “herd morality” to describe the conventional values and beliefs that emerge from mass culture and democracy. He believed that such morality stifled the greatness of individuals who dared to transcend societal norms. Deliberative democracy, by emphasizing consensus and accommodation, may unwittingly perpetuate this herd morality, suppressing the strength and uniqueness of those who dare to stand outside the mainstream.

A related issue Nietzsche raises is the problem of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ This concept challenges the presumption that majority rule inherently equates to just outcomes. Nietzsche would argue that a decision supported by the majority does not guarantee its moral or ethical superiority. Instead, it risks marginalizing minority voices and perspectives, potentially leading to a conformity that suppresses necessary dissent and diversity. In this way, a majority vote can exert a form of tyranny, prioritizing popularity over principle. Therefore, deliberative democracy, while striving for inclusivity, may inadvertently amplify the dominance of majority opinions, stifling the autonomy and authenticity of minority voices.

Under the Nietzschean lens, deliberative democracy is filled with complexities and inherent paradoxes. Nietzsche’s hammer of philosophical critique, though controversial, forces us to reexamine our assumptions about rational discourse, consensus, and the pursuit of justice, and to contend with the underlying power dynamics and individual desires that shape our political systems. While the deliberative framework offers a hopeful vision of rationality and collective decision-making, Nietzsche prompts us to face the uncomfortable truths about human nature that will inevitably cause the ideal to fall short in practice.

In the end, as we grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to embrace the tension between deliberative democracy’s ideals and Nietzsche’s critiques. Echoing the sentiments from insights like those in Samantha Maldonado’s “Inclusion Around the Cycle,” we should strive for a practical and continuous improvement in representing diverse perspectives while acknowledging the impossibility of perfection in public discourse. This outlook necessitates recognizing and valuing the cyclical nature of deliberation, where each iteration of public engagement is not a failure to reach an unattainable ideal but a step towards a more inclusive, reflective, and dynamic democratic process. By doing so, we aim to strike a balance between the aspirational ideals of deliberative democracy and the pragmatic realism of Nietzschean philosophy.

Apply Today to Become a DeeP Faculty Fellow!

by Leave a Comment

Multiple images of fellows working in the 900 room at the Davidson College Union.

The DCI invites all full-time faculty members who teach undergraduates to apply to participate in the fourth year of its Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative. Applications to join the Collaborative are welcome from faculty in all departments at both Davidson and other higher education institutions who wish to enhance their ability to embed more deliberation about questions and issues involving important disagreements in their classes. With the generosity of the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, the DCI is able to provide a stipend of $2000 for participants who complete the expectations of the Fellowship. Review of applications will begin on Monday, April 22 and will continue until all spaces are filled.

DeeP-Collaborative-2024-Poster

So far over 40 faculty members from Davidson and 18 other colleges and universities — from UNC Charlotte and Alamance Community College to Swarthmore College and Southwestern University — have participated in the Collaborative. Collaborative members spend an academic year learning about and discussing deliberative pedagogy theory and techniques, embedding them into their own course plans and syllabi, and then actually teaching courses that are infused with deliberation in a multitude of ways. They have come from a wide range of social science, humanities, and natural science disciplines, including Africana studies, anthropology, archaeology/classics, biology, management, chemistry, communications, dance, economics, education, English, environmental studies, gender and sexuality studies, German studies, Hispanic studies, history, mathematics, philosophy, physics, political science, public health, sociology, and more.

Check out the comments from some of the Collaborative’s members below:

  • Luis Gonzalez-Barrios (World Languages and Cultures, Spelman College): “The planning process of the course was very interesting, since it not only made me think about the new DeeP materials, but also about the way of organizing the sessions, the periodization of the modules, and of course the forms of evaluation. I mean, it made me rethink my entire pedagogical approach…Experiential learning and democratic deliberation seem to me necessary pedagogical approaches in times of constant “noise” and polarization.”
  • Rachel Pang (Religious Studies, Davidson College): “One of the best things about participating in the DeeP Collaborative was the chance to engage with a group of experienced and creative pedagogues at Davidson and other ACS institutions.”
  • Caleb Stroup (Economics, Davidson College): “Overall, I think students benefited greatly from structured deliberation aimed at developing their abilities to reach collective agreement about competing values embedded in scientific research conclusions.”
  • Emily Sydnor (Political Science, Southwestern University): “Overall, I found the deliberative discussions and affiliated assignments achieved my course goals and were interesting and engaging for both me and the students. In their reflections on deliberation, several participants commented that in spite of their initial anxiety about talking politics with their peers, they had found the discussions to be a positive experience.” 

You can learn more about the Collaborative experience by watching a panel of four faculty members who have been DeeP Fellows in earlier Collaborative cohorts. Check out the recording below…

You can also learn more by reading the blog posts by these and other faculty members about the courses they developed as members of the Collaborative that are posted on the DCI Blog and listed below:

Blog posts from our 2023-24 Collaborative members will be published this summer (you can sign-up for updates on the DCI’s website). You can learn more about the 22 members of this cohort of the Collaborative here. More on the background, goals, and expectations of the Collaborative is provided in embedded PDF invitation below and on the DCI’s “Deliberation Across the Curriculum” webpage. 

DeeP-Collaborative-Invitation-2024-25

The 2024-25 cohort will also include faculty from both Davidson and other institutions of higher education – if you know someone who might be interested, encourage them to apply – all faculty are welcome! More on the background and goals of the Collaborative and DCI’s Deliberation Across the Curriculum is available here. If you have any questions about the Collaborative, please reach out to the DCI’s Faculty Director, Graham Bullock (grbullock@davidson.edu), or any of the Collaborative’s current or former faculty fellows.

A Night of Eating Ice Cream and Deliberating GOATs

by

Davidson students in 900 room at 9

On March 12th, Davidson students gathered in the 900 Room at 9:00 to deliberate about the greatest of all time in music, movies, and Davidson life! The event was hosted by the DCI Fellows, and led by Senior Fellows LJ Phillips ’25 and Body Bassett ’25 and Fellows Logan Jain ’26 and Emre Guvenilir ’25.

The event was organized as a competitive deliberative event, and students enjoyed presenting competing arguments about what the best dorms at Davidson are, who the greatest basketball players of all time are, and all manner of similarly lighthearted but contentious topics. There were ice cream sundaes and premium prizes like DCI-themed Stanley cups. All in all the event was a great success, as it introduced students to the practices and principles of deliberation in a fun and engaging atmosphere.

This was the DCI’s second Deliberating GOATs event, and it is quickly becoming a campus tradition. We hope to see you next spring!