Dealing with Conflict: Public Deliberation

Response to: "Public Spheres and Controversies and What Not"

There is one sentence in particular in Daniella's blog post that I would like to expound upon.  "An issue can be controversial without having two opposing viewpoints," she claims at the beginning of her second paragraph.  This struck a particular chord with me.  Perhaps it was the fact that it's currently 2 in the morning. Perhaps it's because I took particularly close notes on tonight's readings for no particular reason.  Whatever the case, there is a lot of unpacking which I would like to do.

Firstly, I would like to point to one David S. Kaufer.  In Kaufer's text "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments," he gives a list of what he considers the causes of policy conflict. They are the following:

1. The misunderstanding of sense or reference of certain statements.
2. The misunderstanding of the frame of reference of certain statements.
3. Conflicting evidence.
4. Conflicting local values.
5. Conflicting global values.

Daniella uses the example of Venezuela to reinforce her presented idea of controversy.  The argument given is that with the government holding its citizens in a vice grip of censorship, there are no opposing points of view within the country and therefore no controversy. Here, I would like to divulge the fifth cause of policy conflict: conflicting global values.  It may or may not be true that there is no internal controversy in the case of dictatorship (I say may not because teens have a habit of rebelling against the system), but from the global point of view, dictatorship is synonymous with "bad" or even "evil."  Especially since the reign of the Führer Adolf Hitler, when someone says "dictator" one almost immediately thinks of war, devastation, starvation, and a leader sitting on a throne of bones (maybe not literally a throne of bones). There is always another way of looking at something that will create controversy.  Even if that controversy is not impassioned, the beauty of the human complex is that there is always another viewpoint.  This is what one must keep in mind.  

This moves me to my next point of the citizen's input in public spheres.   Both Kaufer and James McDonald touch upon an ordinary person's role in the discourse forum.  Kaufer uses the opportunity to reveal a method of teaching.  He uses the example of students creating an argument for or against changing the legal drinking age in the US to 18.  Although he only barely touched upon the possibility of the student's impact, the reader came away with the knowledge that anyone can make a solid argument for whatever they need, just so long as they dig into the deeper levels of the argument (i.e. the list above).  

McDonald, in his text "I Agree, But...",  uses the opportunity to explain the situation of "The Case of Le Suroît" and the Canadian people's response against the building of the natural-gas fired electrical plant.  The people were able to create a forum of debate, which eventually led to the cancellation of the building of the plant.  However, occasionally a people's revolt does not have such clean results.  For example, the protesting in Ferguson over the killing of a boy.  This leads into a stock issue of police brutality that is being largely ignored by the general public.  

This local scale value controversy has not as of yet reached the global phenomenon that it needs to be a successful discourse.  At the same time McDonald's point of accepting the key opinions of the opposing party have not been met. The same can be said for a number of arguments which have been hardly moved over time.  Even though from one's standpoint it appears that the opposition is in the wrong, it is always wise to consider what fundamental values that both parties have in common.  It is also important to consider all levels of public discourse controversy when constructing an argument.  This includes the notion that public discourse may lead to little or no consequences.  Even discourse can't solve all the world's problems.