The DCI Blog

On Mistakes

October 29, 2020 by Steve Kaliski Leave a Comment

By Steve Kaliski, DCI Fellow

Theatre is a laboratory of risks, mistakes, and accidents.

Though this might sound like a strange way to describe an art form that, at least from the audience’s point of view, depends on meticulously repeating the exact same product night after night, risks, mistakes and accidents really point to what is indispensable about theatre in both civic and academic contexts.

Consider the hyper-competitive, high-achieving ethos of a place like Davidson College. Extremely smart people work very, very hard to be as utterly on point as often as possible. But how about this, students? Take a class in Cunningham, and you can let down your perfectionist guards! Here, we don’t want you to do it the right way, at least not for a while. We want you to mess up, to fail, to test all the wrong ways first. We want you to explore the edges of the cliffside, not stand stock still in the middle of a vast field, wrongfully assuming that you’re already about to fall.

That’s all pretty romantic. What does it actually mean? And how does it connect to deliberation?

I teach theatre at Davidson and am also an actor, director, playwright, and public speaking coach. All of these roles feature moments of crisis in which I have to make a choice about which of two lists to center: the list of things I can’t do, or the list of things I can do.

The list of things I can’t do is vast: I can’t say “like” or “um;” I can’t look awkward with my arms; I can’t say “I don’t know” (I’m an expert, after all); I can’t look like an idiot on stage; I can’t forget my lines; I can’t bore my audience.

But the list of things I can do is vaster: my voice is an instrument, and I can do anything with it (speed up, slow down, take pauses, chuckle, make funny noises, emphasize the delicious phrase that brings it all together); I can make my scene partner see how much I care (amazing how I’m not thinking about my hands anymore); I can speak with passion about a topic that has affected me personally; I can ask questions to which I truly don’t know the answers.

Much of performance training empowers the artist with a sense of what can be done. This is tremendously freeing, and it can lead to many happy, productive accidents. In a scene between a mother and daughter, the daughter might decide she wants to get her mother to listen to her. Her tactic is “to bounce off the walls.” The actor decides to literally try this, playing the whole scene as a sprint from one studio wall to another, with an emphatic bounce at each point of impact. She even says “boing” out loud.

Is this the right choice for the final performance? No. It’s ridiculous.

But in being willing to explore anything, perhaps the actor discovers that 10% of this is, believe it or not, useful. And that 10% makes it into opening night. The clumsy stuff unmasked the real stuff.

Reflecting on our early semester deliberations, I am struck by the fear and caution that stifles our discourse about major civic issues. “I don’t know a thing about healthcare policy, so I won’t say anything, or I’ll politely defer to the consensus.” This feels like a distinctly Davidsonian pressure to be right, to be a premature expert, to not say the wrong thing, although I suspect it affects others elsewhere as well. I hope as we all rehearse our deliberative encounters that we can learn from the theatre and be more open to risks, mistakes, and accidents. If we center the positive–what we can do, what we can ask–we might messily make our way toward some productive civic action.

P.S. The only times I’ve ever forgotten my lines were when I told myself I couldn’t forget my lines.

Values, Wicked Problems, and Deliberation: Key Insights from Dr. Carcasson’s Keynote Address

October 26, 2020 by Andrew Gardner Leave a Comment

By Andrew Gardner, DCI Fellow

Last week, Davidson and the DCI had the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Martín Carcasson of Colorado State University to share his expertise on a variety of topics. There are few people in the country more qualified to speak on issues of deliberation and discourse than Dr. Carcasson. His work with Colorado State’s Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) has been foundational for programs like the DCI which seek to organize facilitated deliberation in both community and educational settings. Dr. Carcasson’s keynote address centered on the issue of wicked problems, a crucial term in the study of modern discourse and one which has made me reconsider the way I approach many of the contentious issues today.

Dr. Carcasson outlined the definition of a wicked problem as a contentious issue that pits competing values against one another. These problems force a difficult choice between values, each of which may be independently desirable, meaning that any position requires compromising on one or more value. Resolving wicked problems is one of the biggest challenges facing facilitators of good deliberation because both sides can make bad faith attacks against the other, claiming that they are apathetic towards whichever value they are under-emphasizing in their position.

Take, for example, the natural conflict between economic and environmental concerns when discussing regulatory policies. Each is intrinsically desirable, yet any realistic policy must make sacrifices on one, the other, or both. It is easy to see how discussions on environmental regulation can devolve into each side accusing the other of indifference towards the environment or American workers. The same tension exists in many of the most contentious issues facing us today: privacy vs. security, freedom vs. equality, and many more.

Dr. Carcasson also offers a path forward, both for facilitators and citizens. While wicked problems may be inevitable, our negative response to them is not. The key, Dr. Carcasson argues, is to recognize that the wickedness exists in the problem and not in the people. Doing so is difficult; it contradicts our natural inclination to seek out a simple “right vs. wrong” understanding of the world. However, if we can move past these easy interpretations of complex issues and genuinely attempt to understand the merits of positions different than our own, discussions would inevitably be more productive.

As a facilitator, I look forward to putting Dr. Carcasson’s ideas into practice. A few days after his address, I was able to facilitate a discussion on healthcare, a topic rife with wicked problems. I deliberately attempted to highlight these challenges to the members of my D-team and was pleased to see their thoughtful reactions. I also recognize that I have a great deal to personally work on regarding this issue, as I am guilty of oversimplifying the various perspectives on complex issues. However, Dr. Carcasson helped open my eyes on this topic and I am excited to further implement his advice in all facets of my life.

Click here to watch Dr. Carcasson’s keynote address from October 14, 2020.

Diverging and Converging: The Art of Deliberative Balance

October 22, 2020 by John Leiner Leave a Comment

By John Leiner, DCI Fellow

Perhaps it comes as a surprise that a philosophical work written in 350 B.C.E. provides one of the most useful practical frameworks for deliberative democracy. In any case, the crux of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that balance is virtue can help guide polarized groups—no matter the setting—in making better participatory decisions.

Aristotle argues in his Classical-era treatise that the most practical action each human should take is that which is the most virtuous, thereby leading to one’s happiness and justice. Aristotle explains that these acts lie between acts driven by vice. In other words, an act of virtue is neither excessive nor deficient in its inherent value. To this point, an act of courage strikes a balance between rashness (excessive) and cowardice (deficient) in the same way that the ideal participatory decision strikes a balance between a decision driven by false consensus (excessive) and a total lack of consensus (deficient).

Dr. Carcasson made several references to Aristotle’s Ethics throughout his workshops last week, in which he provided faculty, staff and students valuable strategies for ‘striking the right balance’ through deliberation. In his first workshop on “Deliberative Pedagogy and Program Design” for faculty and staff, Dr. Carcasson introduced Sam Kaner’s model for deliberative decision making. The key to Kaner’s model, Dr. Carcasson emphasized, is that balance is virtue. By identifying pure convergent thinking (i.e. groupthink) and pure divergent thinking (i.e. “talking past each other”) as more or less ‘vices’ in the Aristotelean sense, Dr. Carcasson stressed that educators should embrace both students’ convergent and divergent thinking in classroom discussions.

Consensus, he pointed out, is not the balance sought by deliberation. Instead, mutual understanding and clarification of both areas of agreement and disagreement is the goal. Kaner’s model suggests that by allowing student deliberators to first bring out tensions towards ideas by encouraging divergent thinking and then identifying areas of common ground through a process of convergent thinking, educators can strike the right deliberative balance between perspectives. For Kaner and Carcasson, this balance should be one of the key aspirations of any deliberative process.

Beyond pedagogy, finding balance in deliberation is equally important for facilitators and their efforts to manage the polarization within a group. ‘Passionate impartiality’ is the modus operandi for us as DCI facilitators. Dr. Carcasson stressed passionate impartiality’s importance in facilitating from the standpoint of striking a balance between various tensions, such as impartiality towards ideas, honoring equality and inclusivity towards people and perspectives, and respecting sound data and reasoning. Facilitators should, above all, “model and encourage democratic attitudes and skills” while helping participants “identify the values and interests that motivate their perspectives.”

When facilitators strike a balance between their own tensions, they can assist deliberators in fostering a balanced deliberation. Even outside of deliberation, when competing interests cause groups of people to become polarized in their approaches towards a shared problem, balance is not an elusive concept. By recognizing inherent democratic tensions and placing them on a spectrum—how much we value something versus how much someone else does—we can more easily locate where these tensions balance each other out.

Such polarity mapping/management allows us first to think about and express how we ourselves prioritize different values, and then also to see how others respond to these tradeoffs. Such a process highlights the underlying tradeoffs that are present in an issue and can help deliberators better understand the underlying drivers of their disagreements. Dr. Carcasson says that this balance between values is both a short- and long-term goal and is the essence of deliberation. Like justice in Nicomachean Ethics, this deliberative balance is hard to locate precisely. Yet, let this not dissuade us from seeking it.

Watch Dr. Carcasson’s Deliberation-in-Action workshops and keynote address here.

Deliberation vs. Debate: What Kind of Society (and Discourse) Do We Want?

October 15, 2020 by Sandro Chumashvili 1 Comment

By Sandro Chumashvili, DCI Fellow

Since the age of thirteen, I have actively participated in competitive debates. I started with “world school style” and then found the most significant success in the “British Parliament Style.” By success, I mean becoming the champion of my country (Georgia) and achieving high results on an international level. After the world championship in 2019, at the age of just 17, I retired from debates. I moved to adjudicating and teaching new generations.

After joining the Davidson College community, I searched for ways to further develop the skills that I gained while debating, but in a less confrontational and understanding manner, and I found the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI). It focuses on deliberation and has the primary goal of depolarizing society, which sounded very appealing. With the other DCI Fellows, I went through the weeks of training and now facilitate political discussions and deliberations. Today I would like to point out some of the main differences between deliberations and debates on the different scales and levels. I will leave it up to you to decide which is better for the growth of an individual and society.

On the personal development level, both deliberations and debates help one to train specific skills. Debates are more focused upon critical thinking in limited time. It encourages you to protect your side at any cost, but the beauty of debates shows through when you do not know which position you will have to support before the preparation starts. For example, you may have to defend a position in the simulation that is totally opposite to the one that you have in real life. I remember that I had to defend communistic measures in the Estonian championship, despite considering myself libertarian; other times, I had to stand on the side of atheism while I identify myself as Christian. These clashes help you dig deep into the other side of an idea, which naturally forces you to think differently from how we would in real life; it internally forces us to question our beliefs and opinions.

Deliberations influence an individual differently. Here, you do not put up a wall between you and your companions, but to the contrary, you are open to changing your mind and accepting others’ opinions. Deliberations substitute the word “protect” in debates with “express,” meaning that you shall express and explain your idea, but at the same time, closely engage with other’s points. This way, the conversation tends to be less self-centered and touches upon the deeper parts of one’s ideas. People seldom totally agree or disagree with each other; therefore, deliberation is a more natural way to interact. It takes away the artificial “reject everything they say” point and nudges the participants toward a more interactive discussion.

Are both of those useful on all levels of society? To answer this question, let’s consider two crucial aspects: the stakes and the goal. If participants’ purpose is to show their dominance over another person, they become resistant to accepting the other person’s opinions, and deliberation is no more productive. The same can be said for when the stakes are high. For example, substituting presidential debates with deliberation would not be useful, since it is not in the candidates’ interests to find their spots of intersection. They always try to show their dominance in the areas they disagree with.

On the other hand, and on a smaller scale, wherever the main goal is to find a solution to a problem, and especially if compromise may be necessary, deliberation is a better solution since it does not disregard anyone’s opinion. The output reflects everyone’s input.

Personally, as time has passed and I have matured, I have moved away from debates. The main reason for this shift is how emotionally demanding they are and how high the stakes are. Debates are a perfect way to shape your opinion through clashes. Still, deliberations are more useful once you are more confident in your values and beliefs and are open to being challenged. What is more helpful depends on your values, what kind of society you want to see in the future, and how you perceive others’ ideas. Still, we shall remember that like everywhere, the answer is never black or white; both deliberation and debate are helpful on different scales and in different situations.

The Quality of Our Public Discourse: A Closer Look at the Shortcomings of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

October 8, 2020 by Kyle Broxton Leave a Comment

By Kyle Broxton, DCI Fellow

A little over one week ago, more than seventy-million people witnessed what is commonly referred to as the first “debate” of the 2020 United States presidential election. Throughout the event, the two participants used every opportunity to interrupt, criticize, and crosstalk with each other as well as the moderator. By one count, President Donald Trump interrupted the moderator or his opponent 71 times in 90 minutes; former Vice President Joe Biden did so 22 times. In the days following the event, near-universal criticism centered around the overall failure of the participants to respect each other, each other’s viewpoints, and the rules of the “debate.” But why are we in general agreement that this “debate” was unproductive? Is there something fundamental about this form of discourse that explains where the two presidential candidates fall short of what should have been expected?

It is important to know that many forms of discourse—debates included—are rule-based. Rules are especially important for adversarial forms of discourse as they serve to mitigate the inclination for participants to make rapid, emotionally charged remarks as opposed to articulate, objective arguments. An example of this kind of rule is one mandating that interruptions be kept at a minimum. As this did not occur on September 29th, it follows that the quality of the “debate,” insofar as it involved free and open participation, was poor.

Discourse ethics identifies respect as another indicator of a quality discourse. Respect can be divided into two distinct indicators, respect toward the participants as well as the arguments employed by the participants. Despite the significant difference in political opinions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the existing norms of presidential debates suggest that they should highlight these differences while maintaining respect for one another and the arguments that each uses. To show respect for one’s fellow debater does not take the form of many of the remarks the candidates made, such as “there’s nothing smart about you,” or “will you shut up, man?” And to respect the arguments the other has made—though admittedly difficult in the context of the event—is nonetheless possible. For example, one debater could recognize the motivations behind the other’s arguments, while still disagreeing with their construction or importance. When participants show such mutual respect, debates can be more ethical and productive.

Recognizing the importance of following the rules of a debate makes it obvious why the exchange between the two candidates was found to be as problematic as it was. A failure to adhere to the rules results in these indicators of a quality discourse being substituted with frequent interruptions, personal attacks, and antagonism towards each other’s views.

Though the Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP) specified that “the moderator [would] regulate the conversation so that thoughtful and substantive exchanges would occur,” the moderator himself, Chris Wallace of Fox News, admitted he had not been prepared for Trump’s behavior. Ultimately, the quality of the debate left the CDP open to adding more structure “to ensure a more orderly discussion.”

This is to be expected should the goal of these presidential debates be to identify the candidate with the stronger arguments, a goal that cannot be fulfilled if the candidates cannot speak without being interrupted. Furthermore, respect toward the opponent’s argument can only be met if the speaker acknowledges the argument to begin with. Therefore, calls for additional structure in future presidential debates—in the form of muting mics upon interruption or requiring that candidates respond directly and respectfully to the preceding arguments of their opponent—are made in the interest of productive and quality discourse.