Jürg Steiner

Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis

From a normative vantage point, post-deliberative opinions should be linked to the quality of arguments presented during discussion. Yet, there is a dearth of research testing this claim. Our study makes a first attempt to overcome this deficiency. By analyzing a European deliberative poll on third country migration, we explore whether statements backed by reason affect opinions, which we term deliberative persuasion. We contrast deliberative persuasion to non-deliberative persuasion, whereby we explore whether the most frequently repeated position influences opinions. We find that with regard to regularization of irregular immigrants, deliberative persuasion took place. In the context of European involvement in immigration affairs, however, opinions are driven by the most frequently repeated position rather than by the quality of argumentation.

Decision by Interpretation: A New Concept for an Often Overlooked Decision Mode

This paper deals with political decision making in face-to-face groups. We begin by considering the range of decision modes available in group situations. It may seem that there is a choice between only two: a group may resolve a conflict either in a competitive way through the application of the majority principle or in a co-operative way in the sense of accommodation and amicable agreement.1 However, there is a third decision mode which is often overlooked in the literature: decision by interpretation. We have coined this term in a recent study of intra-party decision making in the Swiss Free Democratic party. The purpose of the present paper is to describe the main properties of the new concept and to demonstrate that its application goes far beyond intra-party decision making and the cultural context of Switzerland. In a broader project about political decision modes in general we have put the concept of decision by interpretation into a theoretical context, examining both its causes and consequences.2 Here, we shall limit ourselves to a few considerations about the direction in which we have developed the theory.

Deliberation in Legislatures: Antecedents and Outcomes

In the study of deliberation, classical representative institutions such as legislatures have been largely neglected.1 While students of deliberation have mainly focused on the deliberation in the civic sphere, students of legislatures have mainly concentrated on formal outcomes (e.g., votes) and how these are affected by institutional rules and legislators preferences. One reason for neglecting the topic of deliberation in the context of legislatures is that many political scientists do not conceive of them as genuine deliberative bodies. A fairly typical example is Uhr (1998) who argues that while the major purpose of legislatures is indeed debate and diversity, it does not imply unanimity and rational consensus. While we certainly do not deny that adversarial and rhetorical forms of debate play an important role in legislative interactions, we think that genuine and consequential deliberation is possible in legislatures, but — in line with new institutionally oriented research programs on legislatures (see Doring, 1995) — that this is largely dependent on favorable institutional contexts.

Political Decision Making in Face-to-Face Groups: Theory, Methods, and an Empirical Application in Switzerland

This article presents a model of decision making and introduces a new theoretical variable to the literature, namely, the modes of decision making. The theoretical focus is on the face-to-face group, and the article also develops an innovative methodology for studying this type of decision-making behavior. Variation in the decision modes is explained as a function of the strategic considerations of individual decision makers. These considerations are affected by a set of four independent variables: structure of the decision group, substance of the conflict, context of the conflict, and the decision process. The data, drawn from observations of decision-making groups in Switzerland, are tested with discriminant analysis and a simulation. In both cases total correct classifications exceed 55 percent, indicating that there is a meaningful structure relating variation in the decision modes to the theoretical framework.

Deliberation in Parliament: Research Objectives and Preliminary Results of the Bern Center for Interdisciplinary Deliberation Studies (BIDS)

Abstract Deliberation in parliaments aspires to convey public justification to general norms mandatory for all. Deliberative theory looks at the normative and empirical implications of this institutional role. Within the first sections of this article, we want to explain the relationship between the argumentation requirements derived from discourse theory, the legitimation concept that results from the procedural role of parliaments within the legal framework, and the legitimacy requirement that captures the need for public acceptance. Within the last sections, the empirical analysis of discursive elements within parliamentary debates is discussed.

Decision Cases in Western Democracies A Data Bank

There is a large body of research about decision cases in Western democracies. Unfortunately, the individual case studies are widely scattered so that the research has little cumulative effect. We present an effort to construct a data bank for which existing case studies are coded according to a uniform scheme. This presentation is done at a relatively early stage so that changes can still be made in response to unanticipated problems or different theoretical perspectives. The article gives the rationale for the data bank, addresses the problem of the units of analysis, enumerates the variables contained in the data bank, and illustrates for what theoretical questions the data can be used.

Comparing Decision Modes at the Country Level: Some Methodological Considerations Using Swiss Data

In comparative politics, the units of analysis are usually countries. For many variables, this does not raise any particular measurement problems, because they can easily be aggregated at the country level. For other variables, however, measurement at the country level is a much more severe problem. The prevailing decision mode in a country is perhaps the most conspicuous case. In the last ten to fifteen years, this variable has gained key importance in several theories, most prominently in the theories of consciationalism and corporatism. Yet, these theories are plagued by perennial measurement problems. As an illustration, we use the case of Switzerland, but our argument should apply to other countries as well.

Why hostility among subcultures? An explanatory model and some applications to the european community

Political systems with strong subcultural segmentation often experience great hostility among their subcultures. However, some systems with strong subcultural segmentation have a low level of inter‐subcultural hostility. This article tries to explain such variations. The explanatory model has as its key variable a systems predominant pattern of decision making, in democracies either majority rule or amicable agreement. It is hypothesized that amicable agreement is more probable (1) the greater the number of crosscutting cleavages (with no sub‐culture in a hegemonial position), (2) the more the decision‐making process is restricted to top political leaders, (3) the lower the circulation in political leadership positions, and (4) the more role expectations in politics coincide with those in other social fields. Frequent decisions by amicable agreement will not necessarily result in low levels of inter‐subcultural hostility. The majoritarian model also has severe limitations, so a mixture of the two models ...

The dynamics of deliberation

Existing instruments to measure the quality of deliberation are too static, focusing too much on the analysis of the individual speech acts. We present an instrument to identify Deliberative Transformative Moments (DTM) lifting the level of deliberation from a low to high or vice versa. To use this instrument, one has to look at the group dynamics of the entire discussion. Empirical basis are discussions among Colombian ex-combatants from both the extreme left and the extreme right. We investigate to what extent personal stories have either a positive or a negative impact on deliberative transformative moments. A corresponding typology of personal stories is developed. This paper is a continuation of previous research on the deliberative model of democracy.1 Good scholarship should ideally be creative destruction of one’s previous research.2 This is precisely what we want to do in our current research, although not in an extreme form. In our previous research, we developed the method of Discourse Quality Index (DQI) to measure the deliberative quality of the speech acts of discussions in parliaments and also among ordinary citizens. The values for the individual speech acts were aggregated for the individual participants and also for the discussion groups at large. Theoretically, 1 Jürg Steiner, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco R. Steenbergen, Deliberative Politics in Action. Analysing Parliamentary Discourse, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Jürg Steiner, The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 2 Analogous to what Joseph Schumpeter postulated for the economy; Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, third edition, New York: Harper and Row, 1950. 40 BELGRADE PHILOSOPHICAL ANNUAL Vol. XXVII (2014) we could explain variation in these aggregated values in their antecedents and consequences. The measurement instrument of the DQI has now been widely used all over the world.3 We consider it still as useful instrument for many purposes, but acknowledge that it is too static to get at the dynamics of group discussions. We have now created the concept of Deliberative Transformative Moment (DTM) to identify situations when the group dynamics lead to an upswing or a downswing in the level of deliberative quality. The purpose of this paper is to introduce this new concept into the deliberative literature. As academics, we know intuitively from our everyday experience of sitting in all kind of meetings that all of a sudden the tone of a meeting may change, getting either more deliberative or less so. Thus, at the intuitive level, we are familiar with the concept of deliberative transformative moments. In this paper, we attempt to get more systematically at such situations. On the one hand, we try to identify situations where the discussion drags on at a low level of deliberation, and then something occurs to transform it to a high level. On the other hand, we investigate situations where the discussion flows at a high level of deliberation, and then something occurs to transform it to a low level. Our basic theoretical question is what this something can be. First, we want to show why the DQI is not sufficient to get at these dynamics.4 Then, we will show how we identify Deliberative Transformative Moments (DTM). The DQI measures the various deliberative dimensions. The units of analysis are the individual speech acts. Each speech act is coded according to given categories for each dimension. One dimension is how well arguments are justified. The coding categories refer to how well reasons and conclusions are linked. Personal stories also count as good justifications as long as they are linked to the issue under discussion. A second dimension refers to the respect that is paid to other actors and the arguments they present. A third dimension asks to what extent arguments are justified in terms of the public good. Self-interest are compatible with good deliberation, especially if they come from underprivileged persons and groups. A fourth dimension has to do with the outcome of a group discussion. From a deliberative perspective, consensus is a good outcome, but it may be good enough if the actors acknowledge that the other side also has valid arguments. A fifth dimension asks whether all actors are free to speak up or whether they are constrained, especially by unwanted interruptions or other intimidations. The last dimension deals with the question whether actors actually mean what they say. This question of truthfulness is most difficult to get an empirical handle on. Crude lies are usually easy to detect, but otherwise the DQI limits itself to the question whether actors perceive each other as truthful. Coding all speech acts of a discussion according to these dimensions gives a good overview of the deliberative quality of the discussion. Initially, we developed the DQI for parliamentary debates in Germany, Switzerland, the UK 3 For an overview of the place of the DQI in contemporary deliberative research see Simon Beste, “Contemporary Trends of Deliberative Research,” Journal of Public Deliberation 9 (2013), issue 2. 4 The DQI is presented in the appendix of both books cited in footnote 1. Jürg Steiner, Maria Clara Jaramillo, Simona Mameli: Th e dynamics of deliberation 41 and the US, both for plenary sessions and committee meetings.5 Speech acts in parliamentary debates have a high formality with the chair giving the floor to one actor after another. Thus, parliamentary speech acts have usually a certain length, which allows scholar to use the DQI to get at the dynamic aspects of a debate. André Bächtiger et al. have done this in a fruitful way for a Swiss parliamentary committee that discussed over eight sessions a language bill.6 They found, for example, that at first many actors told personal stories and that this storytelling greatly diminished over time. A further finding was that references to the common good and rational justifications also decreased over time. The research situation is very different when we investigate informal group discussions of ordinary citizens. This was the case for our study of discussions between ex-combatants of the extreme left and the extreme right in Colombia and of Serbs and Bosnjaks in Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina.7 At the beginning of the discussions, moderators indicated that the topic for discussion was to find ways for peace and then let the discussion go wherever it went. The consequence was an often quick interactive pattern with many shortcuts, a pattern very different from formalized parliamentary debates. Sometimes, it happened that a participant uttered only a single word. According to the DQI, the discourse quality of such a speech act would be extremely low. From the perspective of Deliberative Transformative Moments (DTM), however, it would all depend on the context in which such a word is uttered. Let us discuss an example, where the utterance of a single word led the discussion to continue at a high level of deliberation. The example stems from a group of Colombian ex-combatants. Arturo, an ex-guerrilla, uttered the single word rehabilitation. What was the context in which this word was uttered? Before Arturo made this extremely short intervention, the discussion flowed at a high level of deliberation. The group addressed the issue whether the constitution should be amended allowing the death penalty for rapists. In a very interactive way, the group discussed this issue, addressing also alternatives like castration and life in prison. Arguments were justified, and participants showed respect for the arguments of others. Immediately before Arturo uttered the word rehabilitation, Bernardo, an ex-paramilitary, made the following statement: Family is the nucleus of society. I see Colombia as a big family, and if I make a mistake and my brother goes to my father and tells him to beat me up, then we are not doing anything good. What we have to do is to provide the mechanisms and the means for that person to be able to realize the bad things he is doing and completely change his behaviour. Bernard brings the alternative into the discussion that rapists should not be punished but should be helped to change their behaviour. To support his 5 Steiner et al., Deliberative Politics in Action. 6 André Bächtiger, Shawn Rosenberg, Seraina Pedrini, Mirjam Ryser, and Marco R. Steenbergen, “Discourse Quality Index 2: An Updated Measurement Instrument for Deliberative Processes,” Paper Presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, September 10–12, 2009. 7 Steiner, The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy, pp. 15–21. 42 BELGRADE PHILOSOPHICAL ANNUAL Vol. XXVII (2014) argument, he claims that in a family it does not help when the father beats up a son, and he compares Colombia to a family. With this statement, Bernard keeps up the flow of the discussion, staying on topic and moving the discussion forward in adding another alternative, for which he gives a justification. Thus, the discussion stays at a high level of deliberation. What is Arturo attempting to accomplish when at this point he utters the word rehabilitation? Given the context, our interpretation is that Arturo gives Bernard a helping hand in telling the group that what Bernard suggests goes under the technical term of rehabilitation. With this helping hand, Arturo does not disrupt the flow of high deliberation. He clarifies for the group what Bernard suggests and, in this way, helps the discussion to continue on a more solid basis of knowledge. The discussion indeed continues to flow at a high level of deliberation. Coding the one-word speech act of Arturo with the DQI would give the impression that the level of deliberation had sharply dropped. According to our interpretation, however, uttering the word rehabilitation did not at all disrupt the flow of high deliberation but fitted well into its flo

Raison et émotion dans la délibération

Dans la formulation classique habermassienne du modele deliberatif, les arguments doivent etre justifies d’une facon rationnelle, reliant logiquement des raisons a des conclusions. Sur la base de donnees empiriques, il est montre que les histoires personnelles ont egalement un role a jouer pour une bonne deliberation, creant l’empathie a l’egard des besoins des autres. Plus generalement, les emotions ne devraient pas etre exclues de la deliberation.