Upload
erika-ann
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Class Deliberation Essay
1/4
Erika ArrojadoProfessor Lori Bedell
CAS 138T
3 March 2013
Sustaining Deliberative Conversation
[We] envision a future in which all people[] are able to engage regularly in lively,
thoughtful, and challenging conversations about what really matters to them, in ways that have a
positive impact on their lives and their world. This is part of the mission statement of the National
Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation and it is a very admirable goal indeed. Implementing this
kind of deliberative conversation has the potential to affect great change. Therefore, it is of much
value that our class has shared in this kind of deliberative dialogue on sustainability. Through our 3
days of deliberation, we discussed 3 different options of action. The first was to drastically change
the way we live, the second was to focus on technological innovation, and the third was to
transform our culture. Though we may just be a group of college students, without any real power
over the workings of society, our deliberation has overall been a beneficial experience. John Gastil
claims that there are nine qualities that establish successful deliberation and I feel that our
deliberation group was successful at achieving at least six of these criteria.
The first of Gastils criteria is that a deliberative group should create a solid information
base. More specifically, he states that the group should discuss personal and emotional
experience, as well as known facts (20). There were several instances in our deliberation where
this did occur. Sarabeth talked about how a successful program in her area that involved a
community garden, which added to the conversation about close-knit sustainable living. I
presented a comparison between a friend of mine and me in regards to the difference in teaching
trade skills in public and private school. Lola sometimes gave input about what its like visiting her
grandmother in Africa, where resource consumption is not as rampant as it is in America. All of
these are examples of bringing in personal experiences. In addition, there were times when we
looked towards facts. When we discussed governmental rationing of resources, JR pointed us to a
7/30/2019 Class Deliberation Essay
2/4
page in the packet that showed a graph of gasoline taxes. Brian and Alex also talked about
concepts they had learned in economics classes. Using these different pieces of information helped
our group in deliberation by providing a solid information base.
Another attribute of good deliberation is to prioritize key values at stake. I feel as though
our group was not as successful in this particular aspect. From time to time, we did consider
reservations that the public might have about certain solutions because of held values. However,
the values themselves werent given much thought, much less prioritized. Our group failed to
analyze our ideas in reference to important principles and beliefs of each individual. This kind of
analysis may have been an underlying tone or just consciously noted without being outright
discussed. Nevertheless, I agree with Gastils claim that the prioritization of values should be
present in the deliberation and it was not in ours.
The third trait that Gastil mentions is to identify a broad range of solutions. For this
criterion, I think our group was partly successful, but could have done better. We were able to
think out of the box and come up with solutions that werent suggested by the packet. For example,
on the first day, JR proposed the idea of having a tiered monetary system to regulate the use of
water. This suggestion widened our variety of options which made our deliberation better. On the
other hand though, looking back, the group really only came up with maybe three or four different
solutions each day and I wouldnt call that a very broad range. A possible obstacle in this criterion
is agreement. During the first day of deliberation, many of us simply went along with what each
other had to say. There wasnt that much challenging opposition or tension. As a result, we were
unable to progress in a way that could have led to a broader spectrum of possible solutions. On the
second day however, there was more tension so more ideas were put forth. We broadened our
range of solutions even to the point of getting a little off track when Brian suggested harvesting
another planet for resources instead. In fact, conversation was derailed a few times in regards to
Brians idea. The moderator might have done a better job of keeping that from happening. Even
7/30/2019 Class Deliberation Essay
3/4
with this broadened list of potential solutions, I still feel that maybe given more time, a good
deliberation could involve several more ideas.
Though our spectrum wasnt as wide as it could be, our group was successful at weighing
the pros, cons, and trade-offs of each idea, which is the fourth condition on Gastils list. For
instance, someone had mentioned that a possible solution would be to let the government ration
out resources like water. The benefit of that option was that consumption would be curbed.
However, Alex and JR pointed out that the public would protest if such a thing were to happen.
Another example occurred when we talked about localizing production to save resources. Alex
brought up the point that both oureconomy and Chinas economy would suffer if we stopped
involving them in our production. This kind of back and forth of pros and cons demonstrated the
fact that our group was effective in identifying trade-offs.
Being able to discuss pros and cons allowed our group to be successful in the next criterion
of deliberation: making the best decision possible. On the fourth day, when we reflected on the
previous days of deliberation, we were able to pick out the solutions that seemed to fit best and that
everyone agreed on. None of the three options were acceptable alone so consequently we decided
to take specific ideas from each day. From the first day, we chose to change societys consumption
by the implementation of a tiered water system and incentives for cutting back. From the second
day, we supported the idea of creating a balance between technological risk-taking and caution
because complete reliance on technology could potentially cause more problems. Finally, from the
third day, we decided the best way to change culture was to spread knowledge and education about
sustainability. The fact that we were able, as a group, to find common ground and unanimously
decide on a plan of action demonstrates that we achieved Gastils goal of making the best decision
possible.
The final four criteria that Gastil puts forth all have to do with the social process of
deliberation. These steps dont exactly follow in sequential order like the others, but rather are
7/30/2019 Class Deliberation Essay
4/4
present throughout the whole deliberation. One of these last criteria is adequately distributing
speaking opportunities. In our group, everyone did get a chance to speak and no one person
dominated conversation. However, each day there were at least one or two quiet individuals who
didnt contribute quite as much as they could have. That is where the moderator should come in
and encourage them to give their input. Its his or her job to make it easier for them to share so that
the group can consider what they have to say. This leads to another attribute of deliberation which
is considering other ideas and experiences. Our group was very good at listening carefully to what
others [said] and we did so in a way that provoked more discussion, especially if there was an
opposing view (Gastil 20). Along with sincere listening, our group members also respected each
other, the second to last of Gastils criteria. There were no harsh criticisms or insults thrown about.
This judgment free atmosphere was consequently conducive to a productive deliberation. The last
criterion is ensuring mutual comprehension. An example of this occurred in our second day of
deliberation. Lola was confused about the concept of localization, so several people clarified that it
meant gathering resources locally, not selling products locally as she had thought. Overall, our
group successfully met these last four criteria of good deliberation.
To put it all together briefly, our group was close to having all the conditions of a good
deliberation. We were successful at creating a solid information base, weighing the trade-offs
among solutions, making the best decision possible, considering other ideas and experiences,
respecting other participants, and ensuring mutual comprehension. We were partly successful in
identifying a broad range of solutions. Lastly, we were lacking in the prioritization of key values at
stake and the distribution of speaking opportunities. All in all, the deliberation was successful.
Though we didnt make any changes in society, each one of us did leave this experience with an
increased knowledge and awareness of sustainability. More importantly, we proved that it is
possible to make important decisions that affect many people through the proper use of
deliberation. Maybe soon, we might all be able to benefit from having a deliberative society.