Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

The DCI Blog

Emotion in Deliberation: A Necessity Rather Than an Impediment

by

Brain and Heart

Atyantika Mookherjee ’27 (DCI Fellow)

It is common to consider emotion as the antithesis of reason and logic. After all, emotions are seen as spontaneous, subjective, and sometimes even irrational, while reason and logic is associated with objectivity and rationality. In public discourse, the interplay of these elements is of prime importance, influencing the course of an argument. Playing into an emotion/reason binary, it is often considered that debate should be centered on facts, leaving no room for the informal fallacy of appealing to emotion. Before joining the DCI as a Fellow, I, too, believed that emotion was a dispensable part of facilitating a productive conversation. However, in learning more about deliberation, I’ve come to recognize the importance of emotion, how it can be effectively communicated through storytelling, and why we should not just “set our feelings aside” when deliberating about public issues.

In his article, “Impassioned Democracy: The Roles of Emotion in Deliberative Theory,” Michael Neblo explores this intersection between emotion and deliberative theory, making the case that despite what many people think, the two are not mutually exclusive. He goes on to outline twelve distinct roles that emotion plays in the process of deliberation. These include contributing to the motivation to deliberate, providing inputs through experiences that harden into critical propositions, and ensuring a reciprocal and empathetic backdrop for the deliberation to occur.

In practice, I see how emotions contribute to better deliberations and agree with many aspects of Neblo’s argument. During the deliberation sessions I hosted as a DCI fellow for Davidson students, alums, and community members, I noted many individuals falling back on personal experiences and how they felt about them in formulating their arguments. Many of their responses to each other were rooted in shared events and outlooks. In retrospect, even my motivation to be part of the DCI comes from my travels to Pakistan as a young Indian girl, seeking to clarify misconceptions both countries have about each other’s communities as I saw them. In this manner, I now understand the role of emotion in deliberation to be critical and be expressed through a medium one would also not commonly associate with deliberation: storytelling.

Stories aim to inspire empathy and provide a deeper, more vibrant understanding of contexts the way facts fail to. Through the use of the Perspectives platform that seeks to encourage individuals to participate in constructive dialogue, I was able to glean more of an understanding of the role of storytelling in deliberation. Stories that are honest, important, and effective play a crucial role in setting the tone for peoples’ opinions and allow deliberators to connect, making for a more fruitful discussion. Naturally, the cornerstone for all such stories is emotion. People remember how an experience made them feel and use this to formulate the values they eventually contemplate during deliberations. They listen to other peoples’ emotions and compare them to their own in reaching their conclusions.

This is not to say that the influence of emotion in deliberation is always straightforward. In certain instances, emotions might sway deliberations towards options that align with immediate gratification or deeply ingrained beliefs, bypassing logical reasoning. Nonetheless, acknowledging and understanding emotions in deliberation can lead to more informed and balanced decision-making. From my own experiences, I’ve realized that successful deliberation often involves integrating emotional intelligence with rationality. This integration allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of choices, considering both the logical implications and the emotional resonance of decisions. In collaborative deliberative processes, recognizing and respecting diverse emotional responses among participants can lead to more inclusive and nuanced outcomes.

A Look Back: Eric Liu, Citizen University CEO, Visits Campus

by Leave a Comment

Speaker talking to audience at Davidson College Lilly Gallery.

On February 6, The Bonner Scholars Program and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative co-sponsored two events featuring Citizen University CEO Eric Liu. The first was a public lecture by Mr. Liu in the Lilly Gallery that was attended by over 100 online (via Zoom and YouTube) and in-person guests. The theme of his talk was “From Isolation to Community: A Commitment to Rehumanize and Revive our Democracy.”

Liu 2

After his keynote address, Liu led a smaller interactive conversation exploring the key insights from the Better Arguments Project, a national civic initiative that he helped create to “bridge divides – not by papering over those divides but by helping people have better arguments.” During his visit, Liu was also able to meet and talk with several Davidson students, faculty, staff, and community members about their work and questions related to deliberation and building a healthier democracy.

Liu 3

Overall, it was an action-packed and engaging visit that touched on a range of important topics that are highly relevant to both life on campus and in our broader society. Liu provided us with a key set of ideas and a hopeful sense of optimism that despite the challenges we face, we can connect with one another despite and even because of our differences, as we work together to rehumanize and re-energize our democracy.

Eric-Liu-Flyer-for-Email

The DCI & Bonner Scholars Program Continue Our Collaboration During Fall 2023

by

Round Table Discussions at DCI and Bonner Scholars event in the Davidson College Lilly Gallery.

This fall, the DCI hosted its first in-person Deliberative Forum, featuring three panelists from Davidson’s Political Science Department: Professors Besir Ceka, Ken Menkhaus, and Shelley Rigger. About two weeks later, we held a forum with Davidson’s Bonner Scholars on the same topic: “The Challenge for Democracy: To what extent should the United States and other democratic countries defend and promote democracy around the world?” Over 50 Bonner Scholars gathered in the Lilly Family Gallery to deliberate on this question, having watched the expert panel discussion and read our Deliberation Guide on the topic.

Check out this short video montage from the forum…!

Over 97% of the 35 Bonner participants who completed a short survey after the event reported that they were either very satisfied (57%) or satisfied (40%) with their small group deliberation. Over 85% of the participants also felt like they either learned a huge amount (20%) or a good amount (66%) about the defense of democracy. As one Bonner Scholar wrote, “I felt very comfortable sharing my ideas with the group and I think my facilitator and group members did a great job creating a welcoming environment. It was really cool to be able to genuinely discuss an important topic, as I feel like I don’t get to do that often in my life.” Another Bonner Scholar stated, “It was a very helpful experience overall as it not only helped in learning new perspectives but also helped me strengthen my understanding.”

“It was a very helpful experience overall as it not only helped in learning new perspectives but also helped me strengthen my understanding.”

The Bonner Scholars Program is a scholarship program where students aim and learn how to effect positive community change. Bonner Scholars participate in community service and research, and they have weekly opportunities to engage in educational experiences that enhance their ability to make a positive impact and build capacity within community organizations. Participation in Deliberative Forums allows the Bonner Scholars to harness their humane instincts, listen effectively to diverse perspectives, and seek innovative solutions to urgent public issues. The DCI first partnered with the Bonner Scholars Program in the fall of 2022 to host a deliberative forum on free speech and inclusivity that was very well-received by those who participated, and we have continued this partnership this year.

We are excited to partner with the Bonner Scholars again in the early spring semester! The DCI will host a public Deliberative Forum on Artificial Intelligence (AI) on February 5th, in which Senior Bonner Scholars will take part. This forum will provide a space for Davidson students, alumni, staff, faculty, and members of the public to engage with one another on critical issues regarding emerging technologies. These include AI that is capable of performing tasks as well as humans in economically valuable ways and AI that could be as transformative as the agricultural or industrial revolutions to human society and the world.

You Are the Only Person You Will Ever Totally Agree With

by

Two people shaking hands

Charlotte Spears ’24 (DCI Fellow)

Long before I knew the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives or what referendum meant, I helped my mother canvas for a state politician in Georgia. The politician was a young woman looking to represent a district in Atlanta. I could not tell you a single one of her policies, but something she said to me before we walked around her neighborhood and asked for votes has stuck with me. She said, “The only politician you will ever completely agree with is yourself.”

Many years later, I make a point to recite this quote to friends, classmates, and participants in the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. I find it particularly helpful for a few reasons. The first reason was likely her intended message: it’s important to acknowledge that when voting, we can’t expect a politician to check every single box we demand of them. We may agree on eighty percent of pressing issues, but not all. This is an uncomfortable truth, but it aided her campaign by showing voters they did not need to completely agree with her in order to have a compelling reason to vote for her. (She did end up winning).

But the second reason is ultimately what has led this quote to stick with me. If the only politician you will ever completely agree with is yourself, then you are also probably the only person that you will ever totally agree with. There is no one on Earth that will ever side with you 100 percent of the time. So, when you step into a debate in a classroom or over drinks, be careful when grouping your peers into supporters and dissenters or into friends and foes. Because likely, you can agree with all of them on one thing and disagree with all of them on something else.

This mindset has changed how I participate in group conversations. Instead of ganging up on one person who thinks differently than the rest of the group, I try to find out what he and I have in common that will put us on the same side. From personal experience, it’s easy for someone else to do the same after it has been modeled. Eventually, conversations are no longer blue versus red, or male versus female, but a fluid mix of opinions and agreements. A healthy dose of humility in personal beliefs makes us realize that they aren’t necessarily widely held.

I have also seen this play out in the D Team deliberations that I facilitate. Some people can agree on their opinions regarding abortion but disagree on what type of speech should be regulated. Or, some people agree that abortion is morally bad, but disagree on whether or not the government should regulate it. There is very little hostility, if any at all, in these D Teams. And I believe it is due to the fact that people are free to agree and disagree with everyone. The more often these types of conversations are held, the more we realize the uniqueness of our own opinions, the less we group our opponents into a single box, and the less we commit ourselves to always and fully agreeing with a politician or an entire political party.

How Empathic Intelligence Can Improve Our Discourse: Reflecting on Christy Vines’s Visit to Davidson

by

Christy Vines Fall 2023 Empathic Intelligence in the Classroom Workshop

Grace Gallagher ’26 (DCI Fellow)

This fall semester, the DCI brought Christy Vines to campus for our Fall Speaker Series. She led a workshop, screening of her film, Dialogue Lab: America, and a campus lecture to share her various thoughts and experiences about empathic intelligence with the Davidson community.

Before hearing her speak, I did not know anything about Empathic Intelligence (EI), but her events taught me a lot about it and provided me with a new perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to her thoughts, and I have found several applications of her points to our work with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.

First, she stressed the importance of being “effective” rather than being “right” in conversations with others. I have noticed through my D Teams, the forums that we have had, and through DCI Fellows meetings and discussions, that adopting this mindset makes deliberating much more productive and rewarding. Many of our most contentious topics in the world are topics with varying perspectives and without a “correct” answer, or without an answer we can all agree on. For example, one of our D Team meetings was about abortion. When individuals disagree about the ethics of abortion, the most productive action that can be taken is explaining to others where your opinion comes from and why you believe what you believe to make sure that others understand different perspectives. Abortion is an issue in our society that lacks agreement, making these conversations especially beneficial.

Another point that Christy Vines discussed was the idea that you do not need to change someone’s opinion very much at all in order to have a significant impact. She used the metaphor of a gauge that moves someone 5 degrees in the moment, such as in the direction of a large ship. At first this does not seem like much of a change, but that 5 degrees will keep them going in a new direction for a long time and cause them to end up in a very different place. Simply expressing where your opinion comes from can potentially provide someone with that 5 degree gauge rotation that informs, challenges, and orients them towards a different perspective.

In my opinion, these two points seem incredibly important and beneficial to think about when discussing contentious topics with others. However, these ideas are both much easier to talk about and understand than to utilize when deliberating. When deliberating about a topic that is important to you, I believe that it can sometimes be really difficult to follow the deliberative dispositions and agreements because your emotions can overtake what you are saying, but these ideas can help individuals to refocus their points more effectively.

I have had the opportunity to participate in DCI deliberations from the perspective of both a deliberator and a facilitator. Last Fall, before I became a DCI Fellow, I was a deliberator in the D Team series on elections, focusing on election security, fairness, and accessibility. As a deliberator, I experienced some of my deliberations having very cohesive opinions and others with opposing views, especially regarding recent elections. This year, I am a DCI Fellow, and I have experienced both of these different scenarios as a facilitator. As a deliberator, it is much harder to comprehend if others are gaining any value from your points and whether they are believing you are wrong or truly trying to understand your view. As a facilitator, I believe it is much easier to recognize when someone’s point is being effective and engaging others into their view. This is apparent when participants begin to let their guards down, connect with others further, and realize new ideas.