Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Abstract

We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions. We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions.

Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis)

“…The well‐known insights provided by the interracial town meetings on school desegregation in the US amplify some of these concerns (Mendelberg and Oleske, ). On the other hand, more optimistic conclusions are drawn when it comes to the uptake of claims from language minorities in the Swiss parliament (Pedrini et al ., ). Beyond these valuable insights, we lack empirical observations on the practicability of equal consideration.…”

“…Previous results tend to be slightly optimistic in suggesting that marginalised groups in terms of speaking nevertheless managed to gain themselves an ear -at least roughly to the degree they contributed to the discussion. In a next step, however, we may also want to know whether arguments of the more peripheral groups have been fairly considered by members of the dominant group (see Pedrini et al, 2013). Discovering that views of marginalised group members only found appropriate consideration among members of the peripheral groups would reveal the previous optimism as too hasty.…”

Nonverbal contention and contempt in U.K. parliamentary oversight hearings on fiscal and monetary policy

“…To be sure, measures for coding should avoid incurring inconsistencies arising from human idiosyncrasies, [53] and to the extent that the agreed results reported below are based upon a simple 100% agreement that one set of witnesses or committee exhibited relatively more nonverbal cues (anger, happiness, etc) than the other set of witnesses or committee, the bulk of the coding results do not report as findings any inconsistencies among the coders (and so, a measure such as Krippendorff's Alpha is not used). Studies do not usually discuss differences among coders (although exceptions include: Schubert and colleagues, who comment on a coder's "idiosyncratic tendency to overcode"; [43] and Bucy and Gong, who discuss specific techniques for improving intercoder reliability and precision [9,[55][56][57][58]) and yet-as discussed earlier-receivers of nonverbal messages do not necessarily respond in similar ways, as these signals are conditional on pre-existing attitudes and the situational context of the behaviour, and some individuals are simply more adept than others in discerning the meaning of the signals. Finally, "stereotypical" university undergraduates have been criticized for being "socially compliant" and "more likely to be mercurial in their attitudes because of lack of self-knowledge."…”

“…Reciprocity therefore requires participants to "engage with one another" so that "they do not only give reasons but listen and take up the reasons of other participants" (italics added). [58] Third, in the Commons, partisanship appears to vary across policy areas. In monetary policy hearings there is virtually no cleavage between the two main parties, whereas in fiscal policy, MPs of the minority party (Labour) tend to be more extensive in their questioning of the Conservative chancellor.…”

Beyond Assimilation and Integration: The Shift to ‘National’ and ‘Transnational’ Inclusion

“…In the study of minorities, inclusion usually entails feelings of belonging (when analysing the minorities' perspective), the acceptance of minorities in institutions (e .g . the army (Burk 1995)), the judicial system (Potash 1973), politics (Pedrini, Bächtiger & Steenbergen 2013)), or an observation of their participation in society (Markus, Steele & Steele 2000, Habermas 2008. Deriving one precise definition from all these different fields is complicated.…”