I can think of an extreme (but very common) situation: An elected board sits in the middle of a public debate about concerns brought to light by a small group of citizens who then elect a member to the board. Now this group coalesces with various others to form a strong citizen alliance. Due to sunshine laws, the debate must remain public, but behind the scenes, everyday talk has disintegrated into behavior which falls far outside the boundaries of civility.

This is very “real” politics. This gets to the heart of the matter and is where the rubber meets the road everyday across the country. Where accountability is absent within the informal everyday talk, the leaders and facilitators often do not have enough traction to build those on-ramps and off-ramps. This messiness and quite frankly, the risk to ones personal well being, has a chiling effect to say the least.

I have not offered much in the way of moving forward, but I think the way forward has something to do with addressing
1. the ever presence of social media, i.e., everyday talk is now everywhere talk, and
2. the impact of the exposure of public debates within all media outlets which subjects it to soundbites and crafting of stories, e.g. everyday talk is now the news!

In short, everyday talk has evolved to a heightened level of engagement that has eclipsed more formal structures. We do not yet have clear cultural expectations regarding accountability for our everyday talk. So this is the good, the bad and the ugly of everyday talk.

“There is an easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and . . . wrong.” (H.L. Mencken)

“To accept a truth that changes our perspective requires a certain humility. Getting a new insight is not just adding something to a list. It affects the other truths we hold, just as the birth of a new child affects the whole family. That’s why we sometimes close our minds. We fear the chain reaction a new insight might have on everything else.” Bishop Ken Untener

With the last one you can also invite participants to think about the other truths they hold that affect the perspectives they have authored, or to think about what they fear. The analogy to the addition of a new family member is something everyone understands.

Mansbridge’s take would be that everyday talk provides spaces for (1) authenticity, (2) clarifying conflict, and (3) expressing and hearing strong emotion. It’s worth reading the chapter from that perspective.

There’s some great material on this page on bringing the benefit of everyday talk spaces into formal deliberation

(a) how to express outrage (search for “outrage” on this page)

(b) creating “ad hoc” everyday talk spaces to make anger in the group easier to handle (search for “Nazi”)

(c) using breaks judiciously (“judicious”)

(d) on- and off-ramps (“ramps”)

Can you highlight useful aspects of everyday talk or connections with formal deliberation that we’ve missed so far? That would be most interesting.

One feature of everyday talk that looms large for me is the space it opens for me to meander, to reflectively notice the complexities and contradictions of my own desires, interests, and beliefs. This opens up a psychological space for repositioning myself, for understanding rival positions, and for building innovative solutions. (Think of working through a conflict with a close friend, where there’s space to venture different interpretations, recognize the different parts of you that have different stakes in the conflict, etc.) Many formal deliberative processes emphasize reason-giving, evidence, and assembling a coherent view in ways that may stand in the way of my noticing, for example, that I can find in myself parts of all of the positions in the room. There are group process tools that encourage this kind of exploration of internal complexity and contradiction — I think of Myrna Lewis’ ‘Deep Democracy’ tools like the ‘soft shoe shuffle’, where participants stand up together on a stretch of floor, speak beliefs and arguments on a tough issue, and others move closer or farther to indicate agreement or disagreement — which usually brings out how our own beliefs and arguments are not a neat package but that there are seeds of truth for us in a lot of different views.

Anyhow, I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on elements of everyday talk that are productive and important, and moments or methods in formal deliberative spaces that are more closed and open to these elements of the everyday.

The chapter suggests one core standard for review on p. 96, — what processes produce wise decisions over time? We can’t answer that by focusing on procedures and not look at how deliberative systems are linked or points where further integration is needed. Said another way, we need to look at how the different processes are interconnected and consider what could improve the linkages and information flow between the different forms of deliberation within the network. We also need to look at how different decisions play out over time and have some criteria to track. That would then help us think more about how to improve the ways in which we gather and share information, frame issues, challenge assumptions, and ultimately improve our collective capacity to solve problems and move forward.

1. Is formal deliberation “over-professionalized”? E.g. my town decides that they can only afford one “town meeting” annually rather than the usual four, because a proper “town meeting” now requires weeks of preparation, outside consultants, and keypads rented for every participant. And then they decide they can’t afford them at all.

2. Do formal deliberation practices undermine everyday talk, and thus the deliberative system as a whole? I’m fuzzier on this.

Which is your core concern?