Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis Deliberation, according to Gastil, is based on a public discussion

model in which two or more people scrutinize an issue to its very bone in order to find consensus that becomes the foundation of the discussions conclusion. Gastils definition of deliberation, however, goes beyond that. Gastil claims that there is an integration of past experiences and values that influence the discussion and lead to a free-flowing conversation. There are a lot of conditions that must be met in order for Gastils ideal deliberation to occur, such as adequate speaking opportunities and weighing the pros and cons of all solutions. I felt these conditions were very hard to satisfy in the real world. When I heard that our class was going to deliberate sustainability, I figured the deliberation would end up as more of a debate or an argument, based on my past experiences with trying to discuss an issue with people who arent on the same page as me. When speaking with people I disagree with about an issue, the conversation often leads to a heated debate. We each speak our mind, but we dont necessarily listen to one another to develop our understanding. Instead, we listen to one another to create a counterattack. The conversation, or should I say debate, usually ends with each of us agreeing to disagree; no consensus is made. Our in-class deliberation, on the other hand, thoroughly surprised and impressed me. There was no yelling or tension felt between any individuals. The whole atmosphere was much more professional and respectful. The deliberation experience was very different from my personal discussion based on the nature of those conversations. During the debates between my friends and I, each of us wanted to win. We wanted the other person to say, Youre right. Im wrong. Lets do it your way. We were not looking for common ground. We were looking for a chance to one-up each other. In contrast, during the in-class deliberation, we were looking for what Gastil calls an enlightened understanding. Each of us was trying to find a consensus to take action on the issue of sustainability, and we did so by sharing our point of views and perspectives. We listened to one another to find

Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis compromise, not counterattacks. While my debate with my friend clearly failed to meet the conditions of Gastils interpretation of an ideal deliberation, the in-class deliberation met the conditions, in both the analytical and social spheres. However, there were definitely some areas of improvement our class deliberation could work on. These weak spots include our limited knowledge base, the repetition of ideas, and the development of definitive conclusions. Overall, I feel the in-class deliberation proved that Gastils interpretation of a deliberation is possible in todays world by our ability to meet the conditions, despite the obstacles our class experienced in creating solutions. To start, on the whole, our class followed Gastils conditions relatively successfully. The first condition he mentions is the prioritizing of values between everyone. Each student made their stake on the issue of sustainability at the very beginning of the deliberation. Throughout the deliberation, these values came very clear when discussing solutions. For instance, some people proposed that regulations be made on water usage. This proposition was conflicted with the value of freedom in Americans. The dominating value that arose in the deliberation was the Americans yearn to get the highest quality product/service for the cheapest price. This value system strongly imposed on some solutions, such as the promotion eco-friendly products, because eco-friendly products tend to be more expensive that products that arent eco-friendly but have the same quality. In short, the values of individuals were very prevalent in the deliberation as solutions were discussed. Discussing solutions during the deliberation coincided with Gastils conditions. There was a huge gamut of solutions considered. These solutions were partially based on the three approaches suggested by the information packet each of us had read. They ranged from aggressive, such as federal government regulation on water use or a tax on gas, to very indirect, such as the education of children on environmental issues, to the downright obscure, such as discarding of lawns in America. Regardless of each solutions nature, the propositions were all analyzed for its costs and benefits. For instance, the

Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis solution to require all cars to have a certain mpg was noted for both its ability to reduce carbon emissions as well as its drawback in the difficulty of making such cars accessible to those who may not be able to afford the cars. On the whole, there was a variety of solutions and each had its pros and cons weighed. Regarding the social conditions of deliberation, the in-class deliberation was a success! In debates with my friends, we cut each other off, sometimes rant, and often dominate the conversation. In the class deliberation, the only dominator was courteousness. The Maxim of Manner was followed very well. Each person kept their input brief, clear, and relevant. Taking turns speaking came very natural to everyone. People who had spoken quite a bit yielded to others who had not spoken in a while, myself included in the big talker category. Not only were the timing and flow of the conversation generally smooth and clear, but also was the content of everyones input. No one used extremely complicated scientific terms. If a historical event was referenced, such as the Kyoto Agreement, the occurrence was described in a concise blurb that let the listeners understand what the event was and its pertinence to the deliberation. As Gastil put it, Mutual comprehension was ensured." (Not exactly in that order.) For the most part, all were understood. There was certainly a variety in that all. The experiences and ideas of others played a large role in the direction of the deliberation. As mentioned before, when the solution of requiring all cars to have a minimum mpg was proposed, Ren called to attention the less wealthy American population by mentioning that people in her neighborhood would not likely be able to afford such cars. Sam contributed a very international perspective on the issue; he often compared Americas environmental actions to the actions of the rest of the world. I brought my knowledge from environmental science class to the table, as well as, the importance of parental influence on a childs regard of the environment, based on growing up with my eco-friendly dad. Not every voice was heard, unfortunately.

Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis The oil company workers voice was briefly mentioned. However, many voices were absent. This deliberation was between primarily college freshmen, with limited life experience and sustainability knowledge. The ideas and experiences of activists and sustainability lobbyists would have been helpful in finding the solution. However, there was a surprising variety of backgrounds between everyone. An international student was present; there were political science majors who could share a legal perspective, as well as science majors who could talk about sustainable practices and current progress. In short, the ideas of everyone present were considered, but unfortunately this excluded many important voices needed to find solid solutions. Regarding respect, Aretha Franklin would be proud. Each person was listened to fully. The thoughts of others were never called wrong or written off as stupid. Everyone had a chance to explain themselves and argue their points. There was no tension or name-calling. This experience showed the maturity of us college students in having a serious conversation about an issue. Despite these positive points about the deliberation, as the saying goes, Nothing is perfect. Achille had a few heels in this deliberation. To start, the solid information base described by Gastil in his conditions for a deliberation was pretty soft. Life experiences, rather than scientific knowledge, were a major source of information on sustainability in this deliberation. The information packet about the approaches to solving the issue of sustainability provided a great brief insight into how to handle the deliberation. However, the twelve pages and limited coverage by the news lacked enough information to cover an issue that has been being tackled for years. Another weak spot I noticed was the repetition of ideas and concepts. Almost every time a federal government action was proposed, someone mentioned that the legislation would not get passed. (I myself am guilty of this.) The repetition of the arguments and trade-offs about solutions made a consensus and a conclusion seem impossible. Luckily, some solutions were developed, such as including environmental education into the curriculum at

Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis schools and building news homes eco-friendly. Another consensus was made that local and individual change would be the most effective. However, little was agreed upon what that small-scale change would entail. On the whole, the main pitfalls of the deliberation only involved the lack of solid knowledge base, the repetition of ideas and the limited progress made regarding solutions. Are some of these pitfalls the moderators fault? The moderator has a pretty tough job sometimes. The primary purpose of this job is to promote a focused, productive, and respectful conversation during the deliberation. This involves many tasks. A moderator in a deliberation ensures that all voices and perspectives are heard, which includes asking the thoughts of those who have not spoken in a while. At the same time, the moderator ensures that certain voices arent heard too much. He or she prevents people from dominating the conversation or ranting, keeping the conversation respectful. A moderator must also keep the conversation on topic. This means the productivity of a deliberation may be dependent on the voice of the moderator. If the conversation goes off on a tangent, the moderator will remind the group of the issue at hand. At the conclusion of a deliberation, the moderator may remind the group of the common ground to help the group create a solution. In short, the moderator can have a large influence on the direction of the deliberation by having the responsibility of ensuring the all voices are heard and that the conversation is kept respectful and relevant, leading to a conclusion. This role of a deliberation moderator greatly differs from that of a debate moderator. The differences between a deliberation moderator and a debate moderator are based on the differing natures of a deliberation and a debate. During a deliberation, common ground is trying to be found. Different views are shared with the goal of finding a solution that best satisfies all parties involved. In a debate, the objective of the discussion is to have winner. The debate carries out to see who is less wrong and more right. The debate moderator is less involved in the outcome of the discussion. He or she does not direct the discussion to find a consensus between the opposing sides. He

Alaina Weinheimer CAS 138T Lori Bedell In-class Deliberation Analysis or she mainly prevents debaters from going off on a tangent, over-speaking their time limit, and mudslinging their opponent. To sum it up, a deliberation moderator can have a large influence on the direction of the conversation as part of the mission to find a consensus in a deliberation, while a debate moderator concerns his or herself primarily with the fairness and mechanics of the conversation. In summary, the in-class deliberation was, for the most part, a success, according to Gastil. Many of his conditions for an ideal deliberation were met. Unfortunately, our class experienced some difficulty making progress on developing solutions. The difficulties we had made me realize why it can take a long time for action to be taken on some issues. At the same time, the in-class deliberation was considerably more productive than the debates I have with my friends. Maybe the presence of a deliberation moderator would have helped turn those debates into a true deliberation about the issues. Overall, the in-class deliberation provided a great example of what a true deliberation is like, revealing the obstacles of making definitive conclusions.