The Art of Deliberation

How we talk, and how we might

Saptarishi Bandopadhyay

As an egocentric species, human beings have a natural inclination to persuade others to share their
perception of the world around them. However, this natural inclination is equally owed to our nature
as social beings who crave a society of others with whom we can relate meaningfully. In our
deliberations we strive to replace individual pride and ego with genuine curiosity and empathy. The
individual case studies and videos are important as substantive stimuli designed to spark
conversations, but, ultimately, it is the self-moderated deliberative process that forms the core of
experiential learning we hope to encourage.

Deliberative process and how not to use it

In this course we ask that students learn through open conversation with their peers, developing
discussions by repeatedly engaging and questioning one anothers intellectual positions. No one
person is expected to have the correct answer, nor is any one person in control of the discussion.
Rather, the deliberative process succeeds when participants listen to what is being said and use
questions to clarify, contrast, deconstruct, and challenge preconceptions and assumptions, or even
question the emerging consensus. In this course, each participant is treated as an equal, bringing her
or his own experiences and perspective to the deliberation at hand. The goal, therefore, is use each
other as resources and sounding boards. Questions may be used to provoke, redirect, or structure
deliberations, but they can also be used to slowly chip away at a large, seemingly-unquestionable
concepts (such as, race, law, morality, gender, sportsmanship, or love), or shake up a lull in the
conversation.
The gist: Asking questions is how we gather information, and relate to others
use questions to explore, not instruct.

Be clear, direct and focused

Try to state your initial position as simply and directly as possible, but be prepared to get more
specific if others should ask. Similarly, as listeners, participants should try to be activefor instance,
by taking notes, and asking others to explain or clarify. The first few modules are an ideal time to
experiment with this mode of back and forth deliberation. In the initial stages of interaction, when
first engaging with other participants, persuasion and consensus are of secondary importance. At
this stage, participants should focus on getting a sense of each other as people, and gathering
precise information about their perspectives on a subject. This is the time to build camaraderie and
avoid miscommunications and misunderstandings.

The gist: focus on understanding where others are coming from (context and
perception), and what theyre really saying (content and intention).

Prefer benevolent interpretation to oversimplification

When responding to another participants opinion, try to frame what they have said (even if they put
it poorly) in the most generous light possible. Try to place yourself in their shoes, or think about how
you would want others to hear your suggestions, or, at the very least, imagine how you would
respond if the person was not a stranger but someone you loved and respected. This is not simply
for the sake of politeness but also to avoid setting yourself up to knock down a straw-man. Viewing
another persons argument with benevolence will ensure that your own response is thoughtful,
sophisticated and ultimately attractive to listeners.
The gist: Dont be reductivecritique the strongest version of each others
opinions.

Critique without being critical

Think about everything wrong with internet comment fora, and work against those stereotypes. As a
rule of thumb, engage with what is being said and not the person saying it. This is a deliberation
between friendly strangers, and each person is giving up his and her time to participateit is up to
each of you to keep it from degenerating into a brawl. If you find something offensive dont simply
accuse the other person; rather, by trying to understand why a participant has said something, you
may bring the participant to consider if what they said might be found offensive. Reacting to
emotions guarantees that feelings will be hurt and the resulting spiral of retaliation or snubbing will
derail or stall the conversation for everyone. Accordingly, rather than attacking each other or being
sarcastic, each participant should focus their analysis on the reasoning and intention behind what
has being said. This may be understood as the difference between being analytical and being
judgmental. Similarly, rather than throwing around numbers without context, or squabbling about
their validity, participants should try to understand what the person offering them is trying to get at,
and then scrutinize how much can actually be understood on the basis of the numbers.
None of the above is to suggest that passion is redundant. Passion is important because it is
inevitably tangled with our everyday lives and experiences. Passionate participants are also more
likely to be keen and active listeners. But taken too far, ones passion may disrupt orderly
deliberations, and devolve civilized conversations into vengeful battles where participants becoming
unwilling to think outside their preconceptions. Therefore, in order to guard against the deliberative
process being corrupted, participants should learn to appreciate the energy and inspiration offered
by their peers passion but remain mindful that their response tests the reasoning and conclusions
being offered.

The gist: focus on appreciating where others are coming from (context and
perception), and hearing what theyre really saying (content and intention).

There is No Prize Other Than the Respect of Your Interlocutors

We assume that people who are participating in this course are here to share, ponder and learn, not
to win. This is not a contest but a congress, not an arena, but a round-table (or a playpen, if you like).
If one participant persuades another, the formers victory is a short-lived ego boost, but the latters
gain is far more lasting because the listener has not only learned something new, but has also
discovered something about their own capacity for openness and their desire to learn. So practice
charity and mutual aidfor instance, complimenting others when one thinks they have made a
valuable or interesting point-can go a long way to raising the level of discussion. This is not only
because it builds cohesion and civility between participants, but also because it shows that the
person paying the compliment is actively listening and thinking with an open mind. This process
generates goodwill not only for the individual but for the group as a whole as well.
The gist: You win if you learn something and gain the respect of your
interlocutors.

Saying is Doing
Ultimately, if a deliberation is not unfolding as you would like, it is up to you to chime in, shake things
up, and make it compelling.