Just Talk: Public Deliberation After 9/11

摘要: Critics of public deliberation as conventionally practiced have charged that it is “just talk” in the sense both substitutes sociable conversation for practical and political talk action. I argue criticisms rest on unnecessarily restrictive models politics. Drawing participant observation interviews with eighty participants two forums convened to deliberate about future former World Trade Center, tease out variety which people styled their discussions, included education, negotiation, advocacy. In ways not often recognized by deliberative theorists, these helped hone own opinions reach agreement across difference. Participants also perceived less a conflict between advocacy than theorists tended do. Insofar participants’ understandings what made good appropriate modes influence differed from those forum organizers, they point challenges organizing possibilities more effectively.