Deliberation Reflection DRAFT

Janine Mistrick

ENG138T Rhetoric & Civic Life II

Sarah Summers

11 March 2013

TITLE

The deliberation on sustainability, despite some flaws, was found, on the whole, to be a highly deliberative process because it challenged the participants to use their experiences and beliefs to back up their support of the different options all the while remaining open to the opinions of others in order to reach the best decision possible. Many instances of strong deliberation were seen throughout the discussion of the three options and the concluding reflection where the participants attempted to sum up all that had transpired to come to a decision.

While several participants in the deliberation admitted to not reading the NIF literature on the options outlined for the sustainability topic at hand, the group as a whole was well-educated on the topic of sustainability. Several participants had a larger information base than others, either stemming from their majors of study at the university (energy, business, and finance; materials science; ___ engineering) or a personal investment in sustainability due to a love for the outdoors or an upbringing in a rural area. These three or four individuals contributed additional information throughout the course of the deliberation that not only supported their beliefs and claims but also better educated the other participants and gave them the knowledge necessary to comment more effectively. At one point, a participant brought up the proposed cuts to the department of defense relating it to his stance on a particular topic and another individual politely interrupted, correcting him on an inaccuracy he stated regarding the proposed cuts. Not only was this an instance where respect was maintained despite disagreement, but it showed the participant’s willingness to educate each other so everyone was well-informed so that a more effective deliberation could occur.

In the group of 11 or 12 individuals, 8 or 9 participated in the deliberation (participation ranging from minimal (speaking only 2 or 3 times total) to occasional (speaking 3-4 times per option) to frequent (speaking every 3 to 4 comments, with lengthy times holding the “floor”) ) . There were three individuals who did not utter a single word throughout the course of the two-hour deliberation. While it can be seen as a failure that these individuals did not share their thoughts or experiences and therefore their point of view may have been absent from the discussion, their lack of interest indicated perhaps they would not have been useful in the deliberation because they did not want to be involved in the discussion. Regardless, the other participants shared the speaking opportunities rather well. There were four individuals who were well-versed and passionate about sustainability for one reason or another and their comments predominated but the occasional speakers always were able to get their voices heard. No one dominated the conversation to a point where they discouraged others from speaking. The frequent participators would speak their 30-seconds or so and then someone else would speak and several comments would always go by before someone spoke again.

In the deliberation, the participants discussed each of the options at length. Everyone had different opinions relating to their various experiences. Some people came from backgrounds where sustainability was a big issue while others did not. Several members shared anecdotes detailing how they live in rural areas far from the nearest town or city and it is necessary for their family of four or five to have three vehicles. Others who lived in large cities or just outside of them explained how, in their life, having a car, let alone several, wasn’t as big a necessity because they were within walking distance or public transportation was convenient and available.

While the idea of charging more through additional taxes was addressed as an option to encourage more sustainable behavior, many of the participants agreed that increasing prices and punishing consumers for their choices wasn’t the proper way to go about resolving this issue. Later in the deliberation, the topic shifted to other ways that America’s dependence on oil could be decreased. The suggestion was brought to the group of encouraging a society where more people live close to where they work. For instance, living in a city if you work there rather than commuting into the city from miles away. This idea was tossed around for a while, and serious consideration was given to the pros and cons. Many people agreed that everyone living closer together could encourage more cooperation when it comes to solving issues such as sustainability. Living closer to one’s place of employment would also cut energy costs for travel if more people are walking or using public transportation. However, some individuals brought up the fact that many people live outside of the cities they work in because they don’t like the busy atmosphere and like their space out in the suburbs or country. They argued that many people would not be willing to give up their preferred way of life for a more sustainable, and possibly convenient, existence.

Even when participants had differing opinions, they maintained a level of respect and professionalism. While discussing Option One, the participants were asked what they thought Americans would be willing to pay more for. One member of the deliberation said she believed that with the way gas prices fluctuate, a gradual increase in gas prices might not cause too much consternation and could be an effective way to decrease America’s dependence on gas. Suddenly, everyone in the circle was speaking at once, voicing their opinion on how Americans would react to higher gas prices. Though many people had opposing opinions, they voiced them objectively without criticizing this participant for her beliefs. They used phases such as, “On the contrary, I believe that…” or “I think the opposite is true…” which focused the attention toward a different belief and not a different person. These tactics allowed conversation to continue without anyone feeling personally attacked or degraded.

As the deliberation progressed through Option Three and then on to the Reflection, the participants began culminating their discussion and pulling together what they had discussed in the course of the deliberation to come to a consensus and find where their common ground was and if that allowed them to make any conclusions or decisions. Key values were indirectly identified as the group agreed that what they found most important in attacking the issue of sustainability was staying true to the values they held in high regard such as the notion that it wasn’t a matter of more or less government involvement as long as it was done carefully; that the money one earned was theirs to keep, not the government’s to tax; and that praising positive behavior was more effective than punishing bad behavior. Using these core values and common ground they had established, the group worked to establish the best decision they could agree on. This resulted in them coming to a more global conclusion than specific in which they realized they placed a great value on the more frugal values of the past but also highly valued the innovative power of the technology of today. They came to the agreement that by taking little steps, big changes could come about and that if good practices were rewarded with subsidies and incentives instead of bad practices being punished, and if yesterday’s values were combined with today’s technology, a feasible solution to the sustainability issue could be reached.

Because of the professional way the participants conducted themselves as they tried to truly understand where everyone else was coming from and why they believed what they believed and supported the decisions they advocated for, the process of discussing the NIF’s proposed options regarding sustainability was deemed to have been a deliberative process. While it did not seem that anyone’s views were radically changed by the deliberation process, everyone did gain the perspective of someone who had different experiences or different views from them. There were always opposing viewpoints and the opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard and considered valuable greatly increased the awareness of all involved of the other stances on the issue of sustainability.

So I’m mostly interested in knowing if I’m really on the right track with this. I still need to add something on deliberation and what it is generally and what makes a deliberation effective – that will go in the introduction. However, I feel like for the body, all I did was discuss parts of our deliberation and how they related to the 9 criteria cited by Gastil. I think that’s what I was supposed to do, but I have the feeling I didn’t do it quite right… Any feedback that can be given in that regard would be greatly appreciated. In addition, I’m still in DRAFT phase which means everything is a little choppy and redundant. This should go away as I have time to re-read an polish but any glaring issues that can be brought to my attention would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading!