1

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.

2

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.

3

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.