Benjamin Jefferys Ms.

Lori Bedell CAS 138T (Deliberation Evaluation Essay) Wednesday March 6, 2013 Moderately Successful, No Pun Intended When assessing the overall deliberativeness of our sections deliberation over the past couple weeks and bearing in mind Gastils nine deliberation criteria I would assess our deliberation as mostly successful, with a few shortcomings. I intend to evaluate the overall deliberativeness our sections exchanges by first examining the social aspects of our deliberation then the analytical aspects. We began by discussing within the forum our personal stakes in the matter of sustainability. Each individual brought interesting points to the discussion. These interesting points were important to the conversation, but before these points could even be considered, it was vital that all individuals came to the deliberative forum with the necessary mindset. I am pleased to report that we, as participants in the sustainability forum did just that. Despite the often-difficult task of preparing for an early morning class, from the beginning of our discussion, we were behaving as good deliberators. The social aspects of our deliberation were undoubtedly strong. We were all very respectful of one anothers opinions and any one individual did not dominate the discussion. These deliberative qualities were present in our practice of politely taking turns speaking within the forum and respectfully listening as others spoke. Through allowing everyone to speak, respecting those involved, and listening carefully we were able to reach group

consensuses rather easily. From the beginning we began to see common concerns arise because as participants we approached the forum with the right mindset. While I believe everyone involved demonstrated the social aspects of the deliberative spirit well, some individuals stood out as particularly good examples of the social deliberative qualities. In the beginning I was particularly impressed with the thoughtfulness of Richies stake in the matter. Although some common concerns were arising, Richie offered an interesting reason for concern that had not been previously mentioned. Richie - while bearing in mind the opinions of others and respectfully acknowledging them- noted that perhaps we ought to consider on a more personal level our connection with nature. He articulated very carefully his stake as being more personal than sustainability at an international, or national level, and explained that our consumerist ways put a personal connection with nature at risk. It was clear that Richie listened very carefully to those who had spoken previously and he made his point very easy to understand. He served as a good example of the deliberative spirit. From the staking of claims onward nearly everyone agreed that the matter of sustainability was/is one to be concerned about. The reasons for this concern varied from person to person which demonstrated the diversity of stakes in the matter and the credibility of our deliberation participants. We heard individual concerns ranging from how the world views the United States, to how we ought to be concerned for our own childrens welfare. The stakes were diverse and the wheels began to turn but all of that was only possible through each individuals willingness to participate with respect, clarity, and thoughtful consideration.

When evaluating the overall deliberativeness of our discussions in terms of the social process that is required, I believe we did very well. Our strength was found in the social aspects of deliberation. It was through these social strengths that we found strength in some analytical respects. First when considering our information base, we had a large advantage. Being in an honors course and having almost two weeks to read over identical materials I believe played a large role in establishing a solid information base. Because our forum was composed of good students who thoroughly read the information given, we were able to begin our deliberation with a solid start. This information base was only further enriched by experiences that were later shared by some individual participants. For instance, Alaina was particularly well informed on the topic of sustainability because in high school she took a class focusing on humans environmental impact. Sam being an international student added greatly to our information base because he offered an international perspective throughout our discussions. Our information base was very solid. Though we may not have been considered experts, we were all able to participate fruitfully. When it came to prioritizing our key values we did well on the whole. I think that this was exemplified in our willingness to listen to others and discuss the concerns of each individual. This could be seen in the progression of thoughts discussed within option one. There was a clear sequence of concerns, and rebuttals. First the idea of the free market making it difficult to implement effective legislation was brought up, followed by the example noted in the text of WWII rationing being effective, and concluded with the proposal of gradually implementing environmentally friendly

legislation. Clearly, the deliberators were listening to the concerns of the other individuals and making them a priority by contributing with clarity and respect. Our solid information base, and ability to prioritize key values, played a large role in what I believe was our strongest point. Our strongest deliberative quality was found in our ability to carefully weight the pros and cons of each approach and the tradeoffs among solutions. This was exemplified in the sheer length of our discussions. We found ourselves constantly limited by time. We had no problem identifying a broad range of solutions and often found ourselves adapting approaches within our deliberation, and considering new ideas as they arose. For instance, when discussing the second approach in which new technology was suggested as a viable option for solving the sustainability problem we reached a group consensus that perhaps technology should play a role in solving the problem, but not necessarily as stated. We suggested that perhaps existing technology used wisely, made cheaply, etc. would be more beneficial. When it came to identifying options and considering pros and cons, we did well. I thought that in the end our greatest downfall was failing to make the best decision possible. Though we were able to identify common trends of thought, and agree on the value of certain approaches, we had difficulty reaching a specific decision on how to ultimately deal with the issue of sustainability. I feel this is a good place to discuss the role of a deliberative moderator. Naturally, the moderator plays a significant role in the success of any deliberation. I believe that a moderator should function precisely as the majority of our moderators did. I believe that a moderator should be well informed, moderate, considerate, and thoughtful. Our moderators did their best to be informed and guided the conversation in a constructive manner through their thoughtful consideration

of what was said, but they faced challenges. I think the challenges that they faced were mostly situational. And I think that perhaps with more rigid guidance we would have been able to make the best decision possible in the end. But as Gastil reminds us, no joint decision need be reached. (p.20) From a reflective perspective, I think our greatest downfall was rushing to a decision at the end. On the whole, I believe that our deliberation was quite deliberative. It was quite unlike past experiences of a debate in which the primary goal was to determine a winner and loser. Instead we were able to discuss at length a broad range of solutions and propose many winners so to speak. We found our strengths in the social process of deliberation and in the majority of the analytical process. In my opinion our shortcomings were merely a result of a situation that was out of our control. But I think that we accomplished our goal. On a personal level I was certainly left with an enlightened understanding of the sustainability issue. And I think that given the opportunity to deliberate again, our class would use this prior experience to reach an even greater understanding of the issue at hand.

Citation of Gastils Political Communication and Deliberation Gastil, John. Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008. Print.