venerdì 5 agosto 2016

1 1 Hearing the Other Side, in Theory and in Practice - Hearing the Other Side by Diana C. Mutz

Hearing the Other Side by Diana C. Mutz
You have 63 highlighted passages
You have 63 notes
Last annotated on August 5, 2016
Hearing the Other Side Deliberative versus Participatory DemocracyRead more at location 2
Note: TITOLO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit
Drawing on her empirical work, Mutz concludes that it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one.Read more at location 9
Note: ATTIVISMO E DEMOCRAZIA Edit
PrefaceRead more at location 51
Note: PRE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit
1 1 Hearing the Other Side, in Theory and in PracticeRead more at location 90
Note: 1@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit
And despite the tremendous negative publicity that currently plagues American businesses, the American workplace is inadvertently performing an important public service simply by establishing a social context in which diverse groups of people are forced into daily interaction with one another.Read more at location 115
Note: MIX SUL POSTO DI LAVORO Edit
As I explain in subsequent chapters, my empirical work in this arena has led me to believe that there are fundamental incompatibilities between theories of participatory democracy and theories of deliberative democracy.Read more at location 118
Note: TESI DELL INCOMPATIBILITÀ Edit
Although diverse political networks foster a better understanding of multiple perspectives on issues and encourage political tolerance, they discourage political participation, particularly among those who are averse to conflict.Read more at location 125
Note: LE CURVE ALLONTANA DALLA PARTECIPAZIONE Edit
it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one. The best social environment for cultivating political activism is one in which people are surrounded by those who agree with them, people who will reinforce the sense that their own political views are the only right and proper way to proceed.Read more at location 132
Note: LA MILITANZA FA PRENDERE SCERLTE SBAGLIATE Edit
Studying a Moving TargetRead more at location 140
Note: TITOLO Edit
Face-to-face discussions that cross lines of political difference are central to most conceptions of deliberative democracy.1 But many of the conditions necessary for approximating deliberative ideals such as Habermas’s “ideal speech situation”2 are unlikely to be realized in naturally occurring social contexts.3Read more at location 140
Note: HABERMAS E LA DEMO Edit
As Mansbridge notes, “Everyday talk, if not always deliberative, is nevertheless a crucial part of the full deliberative system.”Read more at location 157
Note: IL BAR Edit
Avoiding What’s Good for Use?Read more at location 203
Note: TITOLO Edit
“Religion and politics,” as the old saying goes, “should never be discussed in mixed company.”Read more at location 204
Note: MOTTO Edit
Political talk is now central to most current conceptions of how democracy functions.Read more at location 206
Note: POLITICAL TALK Edit
For example, Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” incorporates the assumption that exposure to dissimilar views will benefit the inhabitants of a public sphere by encouraging greater deliberation and reflection.Read more at location 213
Note: HABERMASS Edit
Communitarian theorists further stress the importance of public discourse among people who are different from one another.Read more at location 217
Note: COMUNITARIOSMO Edit
Perhaps the most often cited proponent of communication across lines of difference is John Stuart Mill, who pointed out how a lack of contact with oppositional viewpoints diminishes the prospects for a public sphere:Read more at location 222
Note: MILL Edit
Likewise, Habermas assumes that exposure to dissimilar views will benefit the inhabitants of a public sphere by encouraging greater interpersonal deliberation and intrapersonal reflection.Read more at location 225
Note: INTERPERSONAL Edit
According to Arendt, exposure to conflicting political views also plays an integral role in encouraging “enlarged mentality,” that is, the capacity to form an opinion “by considering a given issue from different viewpoints, by making present to my mind the standpoints of those who are absent. . . .Read more at location 228
Note: ARENDT Edit
“Hence discussion rather than private deliberation would be necessary to ‘put on the table’ the various reasons and arguments that different individuals had in mind, and thus to ensure that no one could see the end result as arbitrary rather than reasonable and justifiable, even if not what he or she happened to see as most justifiable.”Read more at location 242
Note: DISCUSSIONE RIFLESSIONE Edit
Social network studies have long suggested that likes talk to likes; in other words, people tend to selectively expose themselves to people who do not challenge their view of the world.Read more at location 253
Note: ESPOSIZIONE SELETTIVA Edit
What Is Meant by Diversity? Some Definitional IssuesRead more at location 261
Note: TITOLO. DIVERSITÀ Edit
For purposes of this book, I use the term network to refer specifically to the people with whom a given person communicates on a direct, one-to-one basis.Read more at location 268
Note: PARROCCHIETTA Edit
But consider diversity–heterogeneity in the form that Robert Ezra Park first ascribed it to cities: “a mosaic of little worlds that touch but do not interpenetrate.”Read more at location 284
Note: PICCOLI MONDI Edit
As sociologist Claude Fischer suggests, “As the society becomes more diverse, the individuals’ own social networks become less diverse. More than ever, perhaps, the child of an affluent professional family may live, learn, and play with only similar children;Read more at location 293
Note: PARADOSSO DELLA DIVERSITÀ Edit
As discussed in Chapter 2, relatively few people think explicitly about the political climate when choosing a place to live, but lifestyle choices may serve as surrogates for political views, producing a similar end result.Read more at location 301
Note: DOVE VIVERE Edit
A Departure from Studying Political PreferencesRead more at location 318
Note: TITOLO Edit
When those of dissimilar views interact, conformity pressures are argued to encourage those holding minority viewpoints to adopt the prevailing attitude. When those of like mind come together, the feared outcome is polarization: that is, people within homogeneous networks may be reinforced so that they hold the same viewpoints, only more strongly.Read more at location 324
Note: CONFORMISMO E POLARIZZAZIONE Edit
Solomon Asch, whose reputation was built on studying conformity and its perils, acknowledged the capacity for something beneficial, something other than social influence, to result from exposure to oppositional views: The other is capable of arousing in me a doubt that would otherwise not occur to me. The clash of views generates events of far-reaching importance.Read more at location 328
Note: ASCH Edit
Acknowledging the legitimacy of oppositional arguments is warned against in a popular test preparation book: “What’s important is that you take a position and state how you feel. It is not important what other people might think, just what you think.”Read more at location 344
Note: SAT Edit
Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy?Read more at location 348
Note: TITOLO Edit
start out slowly in Chapter 2, introducing the descriptive characteristics of cross-cutting exposure in network dyads. What kind of people are likely to have politically diverse networks,Read more at location 354
Note: CHI SI ESPONE Edit
the prevalence of disagreement in Americans’ networks is not as rosy as it first appears.Read more at location 356
Note: NATURA DEL DISACCORDO Edit
In Chapter 3, I test three common assertions about beneficial effects of cross-cutting exposure.Read more at location 359
Note: BENEFICIO DELL ESPO Edit
I find that diverse political discussion networks have important drawbacks as well as benefits.Read more at location 364
Note: I DANNI DELL ESPO Edit
Finally, in Chapter 5, I synthesize the contradictory implications from the previous chapters. If neither homogeneous political networks nor heterogeneous networks are without deleterious consequences, what kind of social environment is best for the citizens of a democratic polity?         The thesis of this book is that theories of participatory democracy are in important ways inconsistent with theories of deliberative democracy.Read more at location 366
Note: SINTESI E TESI Edit
Like the cover of this book, the pinnacle of participatory democracy was, to my mind, a throng of highly politically active citizens carrying signs, shouting slogans, and cheering on the speeches of their political leaders.Read more at location 371
Note: IMMAGINE PARTECIPATIVA Edit
This was participatory democracy as I had known it. There was a level of enthusiasm and passion borne of shared purpose, and a camaraderie that emerged from the sheer amount of time spent together.Read more at location 375
Note: PIACERE DEL SIMILE Edit
it was politics as a way of life, to paraphrase Dewey.Read more at location 379
Note: DEWEY Edit
These partisans could easily be admired for their political knowledge and their activism, but they would be rather like what John Stuart Mill called “one eyed men,” that is, people whose perspectives were partial and thus inevitably somewhat narrow. As Mill acknowledged, “If they saw more, they probably would not see so keenly, nor so eagerly pursue one course of enquiry.”Read more at location 383
Note: POLIFEMO Edit
Could deliberation and participation really be part and parcel of the same goal? Would the same kind of social and political environment conducive to diverse political networks also promote participation? The chapters that follow attempt to answer these questions.Read more at location 391
Note: DOMANDE A RISPOSTA NEGATIVA Edit