Town Meeting as a Communication Event: Democracy’s Act Sequence (original) (raw)
Related papers
Introduction: The New England Town Meeting: A Founding Myth of American Democracy
Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 2019
Notwithstanding notable exceptions, historical investigation is far from central in deliberative scholarship and even recent work on participatory research stresses the need for more historical work. The aim of our introduction to this collective volume is to assess and to draw attention to the contribution of historical analysis in the current scholarly debate on democracy, in particular regarding the ways in which participation and deliberation emerge and develop in New England's famous town meetings. Town meetings have traditionally been cited as one of the fullest and earliest realizations of the idea of democratic government and of deliberation at work. Nowadays the great debate on deliberative and participatory democracy has contributed to restoring the town meetings as a symbol of democratic deliberation. The critical study of how one of the oldest and most inspiring forms of democratic participation has evolved is not only a fascinating endeavor in itself, it is also a unique opportunity to better understand how and to what extent these institutional practices, inspired by ideals of deliberation and participation, can support-or impede-the democratization of today's societies.
This article analyzes interaction from an intentional, self-reflexive democratic meeting of ordinary citizens—a " General Assembly " from the 2011 Occupy Movement—to explore two competing theories of democracy: Habermas's democratic deliberation and Mouffe's agonistic pluralism. The group's rational ideals and procedures for democratic deliberation approximate those of Habermas's " ideal speech situation, " but appear limited in their capacity to ensure Habermasian understanding or consensus. Intertwined with these rational procedures are practices best explained in terms of what Goffman called " face-work " —the ways in which participants maintain a working consensus of mutual acceptance and respect in conversation. These face-work procedures—rather than sincere, rational intentions—help constitute the civility necessary for rational deliberation and participation. Such symbolic valuing of self and other provide interactional grounds for the liberty and equality of agonistic democratic conversation as conceived by Mouffe.
This Meeting at This Tree: Reimagining the Town Hall Session
Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 2019
Co-authored with Stephanie P. Jones, Laura Jimenez, Grace Player, Joseph C. Rumenapp, and Joaquin Munoz Much of the language at academic conferences is purely metaphorical, so it is important to understand the cultural–historical significance of the metaphors used in constructing organizational gatherings, especially the metaphor invoked by the town hall meeting. Town halls/meetings were spaces where members gathered for democratic rule in a particular geopolitical space that was stolen, settled, and colonized. They often excluded women, indigenous people, and people of color. In using this name, then, Literacy Research Association (LRA) engages in settler colonialism in as far as it is considered townish and aspires to recreate the metaphorical essence of town meetings. However, the historic interconnectedness of LRA, the town hall, and settler colonialism can be upended. In fact, LRA can reimagine the entire concept of the town hall and create new metaphors upon which to base the gatherings. This article departs from the idea of the town hall, and it also departs from the traditional structure of academic papers. Specifically, this article highlights position statements written by five scholars who embody numerous social and individual identities. In each statement, the scholars discuss their ideas for the future of LRA—their concerns and their hopes. Additionally, the article includes symbolic sketches of LRA members to represent the people who are often muted within the organization. Essentially, we, the authors, begin an imagining process as we speculate on what LRA meetings can look like when marginalized voices speak out not only about their questions and concerns but also about their solutions.
The practice of public meetings: Introduction to the special issue
2009
This special issue of the International Journal of Public Participation attempts to build linkages between public participation scholarship and communication research that emphasizes close attention to naturally-occurring interaction. The essays all investigate different aspects of the communication that occurs during one public meeting: a public forum that focused on issues of economic development in Omaha, Nebraska. Through their investigation of this common case, the essays in this issue provide detailed description of some communication processes common to public meetings such as nonverbal communication, question and answer behavior, storytelling, the use of the term “community,” and the terms people use to talk about their own communication. These studies highlight how such interactive practices function in important ways to build or challenge notions of community, frame the purpose and outcome of the meeting, display power differences among participants, and clarify key community values. This collection of essays highlights how close attention to what happens during public meetings can have important implications for both the theory and practice of public participation. The full special issue is available at: http://www.iap2.org/?403
American town halls: Public sphere to public screen
The raucous turn in American town hall meetings has captivated the public and startled politicians. Politicians have increasingly turned to digital modes of engagement and more intimate, controlled physical venues. Constituents view this techno-spacial shift as a form of withdrawal from public accountability. We explore the intersection of public argument, public space, technological influence, and democratic accountability by examining town halls as exemplars of a shift from a traditional public sphere to a 'public screen.'
Disrupting Deliberative Discourse: Strategic Political Incivility at the Local Level
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2015
Th is article focuses on strategic political incivility intended to shut down or disrupt local arenas for public discourse. Professional facilitators who design and manage public discourse and democratic deliberation are the subject of this survey research. Survey questions elicited specifi c incidences of strategic political incivility and facilitators' responses to these events. Th e results from this exploratory study suggest that strategic political incivility at the local level may not be as unmanageable a problem for professional facilitators as media reports purport. Recommendations for improving practice emerge from this study, along with promising avenues for future research on uncivil discourse. Tensions fl ared Monday evening during discussions about a long-range plan for land use as well as roads, trains and other transportation systems in Sonoma County and the Bay Area.. .. A vocal group of about 20 tea party activists interrupted the speakers and audience with charges that the government can't be trusted. A woman pushed a sign that read "protect property rights" close to Santa Rosa Councilman Gary Wysocky, who was in the audience. "Get out of my face," Wysocky said. "Get out of my council," she said.
New England Town Government: A Model for Popular Assembly in Two-Tier Metropolitan Government
Gather the People, 1980
Provides an historical survey of open town government as a model for the lower tier of two-tier metropolitan government. Surveys the origins and character of formal town meetings; their historical development; the views of Jefferson, Emerson, foreign observers (de Tocqueville and Bryce), and municipal reformers; town government reforms, including town managers and finance committees; and contemporary perspectives.
Principles of rhetorical democracy
Retor, 2012
This essay challenges the approach to deliberative democracy that is taken by several political scientists. When "rhetoric" is invoked as a key term, its province is restricted for the most part to "style" -how something is languaged in manufacturing consensus in a manner not given to manipulation. Rationality is, in most formulations, opposed to persuasive discourse, as the latter is not to be trusted as a means of ensuring agreement among equals. My goal is to provide a somewhat clearer blueprint for the role rhetoric plays in the deliberative process. I begin by arguing that the "starting point" for deliberative democracy -its commitment to seeking consensus among equals-is precisely the wrong move for the preservation of deliberative inquiry. I will advance this as the first of four fundamental principles underlying the instantiation of what I am calling a "rhetorical democracy" -in part to distinguish this project from those that reject rhetoric's inherent role in enhancing an environment in which democracy might flourish. The remaining principles focus attention on the acceptance of cultural difference, as well as the potential role incivility may play, the positive sense in which emotionally tinged discourse advances social action, and the more precise role of constructing and expressing arguments in enhancing rhetorical democracy.
Enhancing the Prospect for Deliberative Democracy: The America Speaks Model
Enhancing the Prospect for Deliberative Democracy: The America Speaks Model, 2006
Engaging citizens in the deliberative process is essential to overcoming participatory apathy, cynicism toward government, and the apparent disconnect between citizens and decision-makers. AmericaSpeaks developed an electronic town meeting (ETM) designed to reconnect citizens and government. Ideally, the ETM affords citizens a means by which they can impact the policy-making discourse. This paper examines the extent to which AmericaSpeaks’ ETM enhances the prospect for deliberative democracy. Thirty minute structured interviews were conducted with twenty participants from Citizen Summit III, an ETM held in the District of Columbia in November 2003. The interview data suggest that AmericaSpeaks’ ETM, to some measure, enhances the prospect for deliberative democracy insofar as it cultivates a broadly inclusive and autonomous dialogue.