Savannah Boothe
27 February 2013
Sustainability Deliberation Evaluation
“It is time to ask: How can we best meet our needs today without hampering our ability to meet those needs tomorrow?” This question has become the focus of every CAS 138T classroom as we discuss the issue of sustainability and how it pertains to us on an individual, national, and global level. The objective behind this classroom activity was not solely to establish answers to this overriding question, but to explore the structure and necessity of a deliberative environment in forming conclusions. According to John Gastil in Political Communication and Deliberation, deliberative conversation is the most influential tool when trying to ascertain a solution to a problem. He bases the conversation on nine criteria, and if the conversation abides by these criteria, the deliberation is considered to have been well conducted, efficient, and successful. Although our class’s deliberation started off with constant statements of agreement and seemingly no advocacy, as the assignment progressed, we were able to fulfill all nine criteria and reach a solution that could initiate and perpetuate sustaining our world.
The first criterion that defines deliberation is the creation of a solid information base. Having a general basis of knowledge is extremely important for a conversational flow, and the Issue Guide from the National Issues Forum provided each student involved this foundation. However, another large component of fulfilling this criterion depends on the personal and emotional experiences from individuals involved that can supplement the discussion. Most members of my class found value in deliberating this topic for essentially three reasons; to leave a world wealthy with resources for our posterity, to revitalize the connection between humans and nature, and to re-evaluate the decisions and actions we are performing right now that can reverse the depletion of our world’s resources. Because this issue holds so many relevant connections with my class and our generation, we have the power and the responsibility to take action and change the imminent outcome impending on our globe. Every participant seemed to have at least one personal story that related to sustainability in some way and guided the discussion, providing a clear view on just how pertinent this issue is. Also, students were able to gain a new view on how this issue does affect each of us intimately. One student even claimed that previous to the deliberation, he did not realize the full extent of our impact on the world and the importance of taking action to sustain it; however, through the discussion, his view on the issue was reversed and he now thinks it is one of the most pertinent issues in our society. We passed the first criterion with flying colors.
The second criterion is prioritizing the key values at stake. Each individual discussion of the different approaches ultimately resulted in an evaluation of the core values of our country. The first approach, which centered on gubernatorial action in repairing and protecting crucial resources, led to a discussion centered on the distinct identity Americans posses and are unwilling to relinquish. This identity is made up of democratic, capitalist, and imperialist values that have been a part of America’s culture since its inception. The second approach, which focused on the power of markets and technological innovation, led to questioning the responsibility of business, government, and citizens in creating avenues to sustainable living. The third approach forced us to review the deteriorating ethics of our country and how to reverse this process, thus reinstating a culture focused on frugality, altruism, social connections, and living within one’s means. We reviewed the values of our country and how they would be affected in taking action for sustainability, and thus we fulfilled Gastil’s second criterion.
The third, fourth, and fifth criteria address the decision making process. Through them, a broad range of solutions is identified, the pros, cons, and trade-offs of each solution are weighed, and the best decision possible is made. Initially in our deliberation, we seemed to skirt these criteria, almost destroying our hopes in developing an effective solution. We began with a lot of agreeing and discussion, but no clear path to finality. In every approach, there were several times when we began to lose sight of the final goal; we became wrapped up in discussing not what should be done to create implement sustainability, but what could be done, which we concluded was not much given the gridlock between the political parties and the consumerism and convenience-driven citizens. However, as the deliberation continued, we realized that our focus needed to shift and we were able to stop asking whether something could happen or work and simply state that it needed to be done. After much talk about values, current obstacles, and future situations, we were able to come to a consensus on several actions; in order to encourage a sustainable future, new housing should be influenced by green standards, sustainable landscaping practices should be adopted, education of citizens about the value of sustainability should be implemented, advertising to increase awareness about the necessity of the issue should be promoted, and individuals should be called to a personal pledge to live a sustainable life.
The last four criteria explain the social process of the deliberation. These create the environment that the discussion takes place in and therefore describe the responsibilities of the moderator. The first task of the moderator is to adequately distribute speaking opportunities. With four different moderators with four different styles, we had a conglomeration of ways to ensure people received the chance to speak. However, each one did ensure everyone spoke. One asked leading questions that could incorporate everyone, one asked us to go around the circle and share, and one even directly asked participants; however, each tried their best to establish an atmosphere where everyone felt comfortable enough and was encouraged to share their opinions and not worry about backlash.
Along with balancing discussion, the next necessity of the social process of deliberation is mutual comprehension. This falls on both the participants and the moderator; those discussing need to be aware of the other participants and the level of their understanding of the subject, but it is also the moderator’s obligation to question the speaker if what they have said is confusing. The moderators for our class deliberation did a good job in asking for clarification of a statement, and they also did a good job consistently summarizing the points that had been made; for example, one moderator would allow the conversation to flow for a bit, then take a moment to review what had just been said and reorganize the thoughts of the participants to move on to other topics.
The next two criteria go hand in hand. It is a requirement of a proper deliberation that other ideas and experiences are considered, and that all participants are respected. The deliberation is not to turn into a debate, which can happen quickly if someone is not open-minded and cannot accept another’s view. Our class deliberation was run very respectfully and I believe we all were very receptive of each other’s opinions. However, I almost think we were too accepting. There was quite a lot of “I agree with…” and not a lot of confrontation. Which I would argue could be a good thing, as long as the disagreements were made in a respectful way; the contrasting opinions could be a way to expose to other participants to ideas they previously had not thought about. Until we began discussing lawns and sustainable landscaping processes, no one out rightly disagreed with another. However, we upheld each other’s views, took them into account when deciding our final actions, and I believe we all learned something new and were able to see the issue from another perspective; I know I did. Going into the deliberation, I totally disagreed with Approach 3; I did not think it possible to change the culture of the United States. However, after deliberating the option, I now think that a paradigm shift in our nation’s culture may be the most conducive approach to preserving our world.
All in all, my section of CAS 138T followed the nine criteria of democratic conversation, and in following this model, we were able to draw reasonable conclusions on the issue of sustainability and we were able to gain new perspectives on the matters surrounding it.