Erika Arrojado Professor Lori Bedell CAS 138T 3 March 2013 Sustaining Deliberative Conversation [We] envision a future

in which all people [] are able to engage regularly in lively, thoughtful, and challenging conversations about what really matters to them, in ways that have a positive impact on their lives and their world. This is part of the mission statement of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation and it is a very admirable goal indeed. Implementing this kind of deliberative conversation has the potential to affect great change. Therefore, it is of much value that our class has shared in this kind of deliberative dialogue on sustainability. Through our 3 days of deliberation, we discussed 3 different options of action. The first was to drastically change the way we live, the second was to focus on technological innovation, and the third was to transform our culture. Though we may just be a group of college students, without any real power over the workings of society, our deliberation has overall been a beneficial experience. John Gastil claims that there are nine qualities that establish successful deliberation and I feel that our deliberation group was successful at achieving at least six of these criteria. The first of Gastils criteria is that a deliberative group should create a solid information base. More specifically, he states that the group should discuss personal and emotional experience, as well as known facts (20). There were several instances in our deliberation where this did occur. Sarabeth talked about how a successful program in her area that involved a community garden, which added to the conversation about close-knit sustainable living. I presented a comparison between a friend of mine and me in regards to the difference in teaching trade skills in public and private school. Lola sometimes gave input about what its like visiting her grandmother in Africa, where resource consumption is not as rampant as it is in America. All of these are examples of bringing in personal experiences. In addition, there were times when we looked towards facts. When we discussed governmental rationing of resources, JR pointed us to a

page in the packet that showed a graph of gasoline taxes. Brian and Alex also talked about concepts they had learned in economics classes. Using these different pieces of information helped our group in deliberation by providing a solid information base. Another attribute of good deliberation is to prioritize key values at stake. I feel as though our group was not as successful in this particular aspect. From time to time, we did consider reservations that the public might have about certain solutions because of held values. However, the values themselves werent given much thought, much less prioritized. Our group failed to analyze our ideas in reference to important principles and beliefs of each individual. This kind of analysis may have been an underlying tone or just consciously noted without being outright discussed. Nevertheless, I agree with Gastils claim that the prioritization of values should be present in the deliberation and it was not in ours. The third trait that Gastil mentions is to identify a broad range of solutions. For this criterion, I think our group was partly successful, but could have done better. We were able to think out of the box and come up with solutions that werent suggested by the packet. For example, on the first day, JR proposed the idea of having a tiered monetary system to regulate the use of water. This suggestion widened our variety of options which made our deliberation better. On the other hand though, looking back, the group really only came up with maybe three or four different solutions each day and I wouldnt call that a very broad range. A possible obstacle in this criterion is agreement. During the first day of deliberation, many of us simply went along with what each other had to say. There wasnt that much challenging opposition or tension. As a result, we were unable to progress in a way that could have led to a broader spectrum of possible solutions. On the second day however, there was more tension so more ideas were put forth. We broadened our range of solutions even to the point of getting a little off track when Brian suggested harvesting another planet for resources instead. In fact, conversation was derailed a few times in regards to Brians idea. The moderator might have done a better job of keeping that from happening. Even

with this broadened list of potential solutions, I still feel that maybe given more time, a good deliberation could involve several more ideas. Though our spectrum wasnt as wide as it could be, our group was successful at weighing the pros, cons, and trade-offs of each idea, which is the fourth condition on Gastils list. For instance, someone had mentioned that a possible solution would be to let the government ration out resources like water. The benefit of that option was that consumption would be curbed. However, Alex and JR pointed out that the public would protest if such a thing were to happen. Another example occurred when we talked about localizing production to save resources. Alex brought up the point that both our economy and Chinas economy would suffer if we stopped involving them in our production. This kind of back and forth of pros and cons demonstrated the fact that our group was effective in identifying trade-offs. Being able to discuss pros and cons allowed our group to be successful in the next criterion of deliberation: making the best decision possible. On the fourth day, when we reflected on the previous days of deliberation, we were able to pick out the solutions that seemed to fit best and that everyone agreed on. None of the three options were acceptable alone so consequently we decided to take specific ideas from each day. From the first day, we chose to change societys consumption by the implementation of a tiered water system and incentives for cutting back. From the second day, we supported the idea of creating a balance between technological risk-taking and caution because complete reliance on technology could potentially cause more problems. Finally, from the third day, we decided the best way to change culture was to spread knowledge and education about sustainability. The fact that we were able, as a group, to find common ground and unanimously decide on a plan of action demonstrates that we achieved Gastils goal of making the best decision possible. The final four criteria that Gastil puts forth all have to do with the social process of deliberation. These steps dont exactly follow in sequential order like the others, but rather are

present throughout the whole deliberation. One of these last criteria is adequately distributing speaking opportunities. In our group, everyone did get a chance to speak and no one person dominated conversation. However, each day there were at least one or two quiet individuals who didnt contribute quite as much as they could have. That is where the moderator should come in and encourage them to give their input. Its his or her job to make it easier for them to share so that the group can consider what they have to say. This leads to another attribute of deliberation which is considering other ideas and experiences. Our group was very good at listening carefully to what others [said] and we did so in a way that provoked more discussion, especially if there was an opposing view (Gastil 20). Along with sincere listening, our group members also respected each other, the second to last of Gastils criteria. There were no harsh criticisms or insults thrown about. This judgment free atmosphere was consequently conducive to a productive deliberation. The last criterion is ensuring mutual comprehension. An example of this occurred in our second day of deliberation. Lola was confused about the concept of localization, so several people clarified that it meant gathering resources locally, not selling products locally as she had thought. Overall, our group successfully met these last four criteria of good deliberation. To put it all together briefly, our group was close to having all the conditions of a good deliberation. We were successful at creating a solid information base, weighing the trade-offs among solutions, making the best decision possible, considering other ideas and experiences, respecting other participants, and ensuring mutual comprehension. We were partly successful in identifying a broad range of solutions. Lastly, we were lacking in the prioritization of key values at stake and the distribution of speaking opportunities. All in all, the deliberation was successful. Though we didnt make any changes in society, each one of us did leave this experience with an increased knowledge and awareness of sustainability. More importantly, we proved that it is possible to make important decisions that affect many people through the proper use of deliberation. Maybe soon, we might all be able to benefit from having a deliberative society.