Deliberation across Deeply Divided Societies

Abstract

From the local level to international politics, deliberation helps to increase mutual understanding and trust, in order to arrive at political decisions of high epistemic value and legitimacy. This book gives deliberation a dynamic dimension, analysing how levels of deliberation rise and fall in group discussions, and introducing the concept of 'deliberative transformative moments' and how they can be applied to deeply divided societies, where deliberation is most needed but also most difficult to work. Discussions between ex-guerrillas and ex-paramilitaries in Colombia, Serbs and Bosnjaks in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and police officers and locals in Brazilian favelas are used as case studies, with participants addressing how peace can be attained in their countries. Allowing access to the records and transcripts of the discussions opens an opportunity for practitioners of conflict resolution to apply this research to their work in trouble spots of the world, creating a link between the theory and practice of deliberation.

Intergroup Contact in Deliberative Contexts: Evidence From Deliberative Polls

“…These results are in line with past work that showed the effectiveness of face-toface contact in structured settings (e.g., Maoz, 2000aMaoz, , 2011Maoz & Ellis, 2008;Steiner et al, 2017). Moreover, given our experimental design, it provides strong evidence that these effects are indeed causal: structured encounters with members of a historically-disadvantaged group causes attitudes to be more sympathetic towards this group.…”

“…Also, potentially enduring and transformative effects may emerge from single encounters that occur in specialized settings (e.g., Maoz, 2000a). In their recent book, Steiner et al (2017) examined deliberative group discussions in particularly hard cases, such as discussions between ex-paramilitaries and ex-guerrillas in Colombia. Natural discussions in safe settings may be extremely difficult to achieve in these situations, yet structured settings may offer opportunities for transformative moments in deliberation that last beyond the immediate discussion context (Steiner et al, 2017).…”

“…intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954;Pettigrew, 1998), this work examines the processes, challenges, and effects of various, dialogue-based interventions in contexts that exemplify deep conflict (e.g., Hammack, Pilecki, & Merrilees, 2014;Maoz, 2000aMaoz, , 2002Maoz, , 2004Steiner, Jaramillo, Maia, & Mameli, 2017).…”

“…This work has contributed greatly to our understanding of how groups in deep conflict actually discuss issues (e.g., Steiner et al, 2017), variations in models of encounter and their implications (e.g., Hammack, 2006;Hammack et al, 2014;Maoz, 2004Maoz, , 2011, and the outcomes of structured encounters (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2014;Maoz, 2000a;Maoz & Ellis, 2008). For example, Jewish-Israelis that participated in structured, intergroup meetings with Palestinians showed greater support for integrative compromise solutions (Maoz & Ellis, 2008), while Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli high school students who participated in two-day dialogue workshops had improved perceptions of the other group (Maoz, 2000a).…”

O processo de comunicação pública e relações públicas em comitês de bacias hidrográficas no estado de São Paulo

“…Diálogo, neste contexto, não é um conceito abstrato. Trata-se de um diálogo efetivo, operacionalizado no interior de estruturas de participação política surgidas após a redemocratização do Brasil, como conselhos gestores de políticas e comitês de bacias hidrográficas, que instauram esferas de deliberação dependentes de uma dimensão comunicativa cada vez mais estudada no país, inclusive em caráter comparativo com experiências internacionais similares (Avritzer, 2012;Marques, 2009;Steiner et al, 2017).…”