Prerequisites of deliberative democracy: Inclusivity, publicity, and heterogeneity of German citizens’ everyday political talk

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 11 (2022), Issue 1
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 11 (2022), Issue 1

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2022
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 11 (2022), Issue 1

Prerequisites of deliberative democracy: Inclusivity, publicity, and heterogeneity of German citizens’ everyday political talk

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

Departing from a systemic perspective, the paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of ordinary citizens’ everyday political talk from a deliberative democratic point of view. Drawing on unique survey data collected in Germany it examines three prerequisites of deliberative democracy as a model of democracy that is rooted in political discussions among the citizenry at large: (1) The prerequisite of inclusivity expects citizens’ engagement in everyday conversations to be widespread and egalitarian. (2) The prerequisite of publicity demands citizens to be mutually aware of each other’s political perspectives. (3) The prerequisite of heterogeneity necessitates that the standpoints to which citizens are exposed when communicating about politics reflect society’s political pluralism. Analyses of citizens’ communicative engagement in their overall and core networks suggest basically positive diagnoses for all three prerequisites, but with severe limitations on closer inspection. The paper furthermore shows that with regard to everyday political talk social inequality gives rise to political inequality, and demonstrates how these effects are mediated by variations in citizens’ endowment with cultural and social capital.

Bibliography

  1. Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy. A comparative approach. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  2. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Politics, expertise, and interdependence within electorates. In J. E. Leighley (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior (pp. 278–299). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  3. Amsalem, E., & Nir, L. (2019). Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0093650219866357 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  4. Anderson, C. J., & Paskeviciute, A. (2005). Macro-politics and micro-behavior. Mainstream politics and the frequency of political discussion in contemporary democracies. In A. Zuckerman (Ed.), The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (pp. 228–248). Temple University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  5. Bächtiger, A. (2016). Empirische Deliberationsforschung [Empirical deliberation research]. In W. O. Lembcke, C. Ritzi, & S. G. Schaal (Eds.), Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie, Band 2: Empirische Demokratietheorien (pp. 251–278). Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  6. Bächtiger, A., & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation. Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  7. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  8. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  9. Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Need-to-belong theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  10. E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 121–140). SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  11. Beauvais, E. (2018). Deliberation and equality. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 144– 155). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  12. Bennett, S. E., Lickinger, R. S., & Rhine, S. L. (2000). Political talk over here, over there, over time. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 99–119. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  13. Bessette, J. M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and american national government. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  14. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. MIT Press. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Epis- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  15. teme, 3, 175–191. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  16. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  17. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00276.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  18. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  19. Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2013). Personality approaches to political behavior. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 23–58). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  20. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  21. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative Democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0090591709332336 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  22. Chambers, S. (2012). Deliberation and mass democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (pp. 52–71). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  23. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. N. Pettit (Eds.), The Good Polity. Normative Analysis of the State (pp. 18–34). Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  24. Conover, P. J., & Miller, P. R. (2018). Taking everyday political talk seriously. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 378–391). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  25. Conover, P. J., & Searing, D. D. (2005). Studying ‚Everyday political talk‘ in the deliberative system. Acta Politica, 40(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113 Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  26. discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 21–62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  27. Cowan, S. K., & Baldassarri, D. (2018). “It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Social Networks, 52, 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  28. Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8(3), 85–109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  29. Dalton, R. J. (2017). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  30. De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and pocesses of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(4), 346–365. https://doi. org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1376 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  31. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  32. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  33. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  34. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  35. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  36. Dryzek, J. S. (2016). Symposium commentary: Reflections on the theory of deliberative systems. Critical Policy Studies, 10(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.20 16.1170620 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  37. Dunn, J. (2018). Setting the people free: The story of democracy (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  38. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  39. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How americans produce apathy in everyday life. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  40. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  41. Ellerbrock, S. (2022). Partisan agreement and disagreement in voters’ discussant networks: Contextual constraints and partisan selectivity in a changing electorate. In R. Schmitt-Beck, S. Roßteutscher, H. Schoen, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Eds.), The Changing German Voter. Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  42. Eveland, W. P., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. (2012). Social networks and political knowledge. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 240–252). SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  43. Eveland, W. P., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. C. (2013). Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication, 30(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10584609.2012.737433 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  44. Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  45. Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035. https://doi.org/10.2307/2778746 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  46. Felicetti, A. (2014). Citizen forums in the deliberative system. Democratic Theory, 1(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010210 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  47. Fischer, C. S. (2011). Still connected. Family and friends in America since 1970. Russell Sage Foundation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  48. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation. New directions for democratic reform. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  49. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  50. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak. Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  51. Fishkin, J. (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking. Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  52. Fitzgerald, J. (2013). What does “political” mean to you? Political Behavior, 35(3), 453– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  53. 479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9212-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  54. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444809357927 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  55. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  56. Fuchs, D. (2014). Empirische Deliberationsforschung – eine kritische Diskussion [Empirical deliberation research – A critical discussion]. In C. Landwehr & R. Schmalz-Bruns (Eds.), Deliberative Demokratie in der Diskussion. Herausforderungen, Bewährungsprobleme, Kritik (pp. 169–201). Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  57. Gärtner, L., Wuttke, A., & Schoen, H. (2021). Who talks and who listens? How political involvement influences the potential for democratic deliberation in everyday political talk. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.16997/ jdd.983 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  58. Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand. Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. University of California Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  59. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  60. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044 Gerber, M., Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Reber, S., & Rohr, S. (2018). Deliberative abilities Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  61. and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis). British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000144 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  62. GESIS (2019). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften [General social survey] ALLBUS 2018 (ZA5270), data file version 2.0.0 (https://doi.org/10.4232/ 1.13250). GESIS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  63. Glover, T. D. (2018). Ordinary political conversation in seemingly nonpolitical leisure: All talk and no action? Leisure Sciences, 40(7), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/014904 00.2018.1534626 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  64. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts. A user’s guide. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  65. Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  66. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(3), 1360–1380. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  67. Grill, C., Schmitt-Beck, R., & Metz, M. (2018). S‘udying the ‘Conversations ’f Democracy’: Research design and data collection. Working Paper 173. MZES. https://www.mzes. unimannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-173.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  68. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  69. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1999). Democratic disagreement. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative Politics (pp. 243–279). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  70. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  71. Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  73. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  74. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd edition). Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  75. Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  76. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P. (2003). Stellung im Beruf als Ersatz für eine Berufsklassifikation zur Ermittlung von sozialem Prestige [Occupational position as proxy for a classification of occupational prestige]. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 27(53), 114–127. doi:https:// nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-207760 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  77. Huckfeldt, R. (2017). Taking interdependence seriously: Platforms for understanding political communication. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 695–712). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  78. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1025–1054. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  79. Huckfeldt, R., Ikeda, K. i., & Pappi, F. U. (2005). Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 497–514. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  80. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement. The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  81. Huckfeldt, R., & Morehouse Mendez, J. (2008). Moths, flames, and political engagement. Managing disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 83–96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  82. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication. Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  83. Hutchens, M. J. (2017). How we talk and why it matters. In A. Dudo & L. Kahlor (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  84. Strategic Communication: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 96–114). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  85. Ikeda, K.I., & Richey, S. (2012). Social networks and Japanese democracy: The beneficial impact of interpersonal communication in East Asia. Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  86. Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking together. Public deliberation and political participation in America. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  87. Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  88. Jennstål, J., Uba, K., & Öberg , P. (2021). Deliberative civic culture: Assessing the prevalence of deliberative conversational norms. Political Studies, 69(2), 366–389. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0032321719899036 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  89. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2006). Putting voters in their place. Geography and elections in Great Britain. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  90. Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51–70. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  91. Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/ nfp032 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  92. Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A., & McClurg, S. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  93. Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1997). What sort of equality does deliberative democracy require? In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy. Essays on reason and politics (pp. 279-319). MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  94. Knops, A. (2006). Delivering deliberation’s emancipatory potential. Political Theory, 34(5), 594–623. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  95. Kock, C., & Villadsen, L. S. (2017). Rhetorical citizenship: Studying the discursive crafting and enactment of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 21(5), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13621025.2017.1316360 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  96. Kratz, A. (2019). Politische Sachfragen [Political issues]. In S. Roßteutscher, R. Schmitt-Beck, H. Schoen, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Eds.), Zwischen Polarisierung und Beharrung: Die Bundestagswahl 2017 (pp. 229–245). Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  97. Kruglanski, A. W., & Fishman, S. (2009). The need for cognitive closure. In M. R. Leary & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  98. R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 343– 353). Guilford Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  99. Lafont, C. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts. A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  100. Landwehr, C. (2020). Deliberative Beteiligungsverfahren [Deliberative participation methods]. In T. Faas, O. W. Gabriel, & J. Maier (Eds.), Politikwissenschaftliche Einstellungs- und Verhaltensforschung: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Studium (pp. 413–434). Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  101. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  102. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968 [1944]). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  103. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27, 248–274. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  104. Linvill, D., Mazer, J. P., & Boatwright, B. C. (2016). Need for cognition as a mediating variable between aggressive communication traits and tolerance for disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 33(4), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  105. .2016.1224160 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  106. Lup, O. (2011). The relevance of micro social contexts for individual political engagement: A comparative analysis. PhD thesis. Budapest: Central European University. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  107. Maia, R. C. (2012). Deliberation, the media and political talk. Hampton Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  108. Maia, R. C., Hauber, G., Choucair, T., & Crepalde, N. J. (2021). What kind of disagreement favors reason-giving? Analyzing online political discussions across the broader public sphere. Political Studies, 69(1), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719894708 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  109. Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  110. 368. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  111. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  112. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (pp. 211–242). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  113. Mansbridge, J. (2015). A minimalist definition of deliberation. In P. Heller & V. Rao (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  114. Deliberation and Development (pp. 27–50). World Bank Group. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  115. Martí, J. L. (2017). Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(5), 556–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13698230.2017.1328089 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  116. McClurg, S., Klofstad, C., & Sokhey, A. (2018). Discussion networks. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (pp. 515–533). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  117. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2678628 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  118. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. Delli Carpini, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  119. L. Huddy, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in Micropolitics: Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation (pp. 151–193). JAI Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  120. Mill, J. S. (1991 [1861]). Considerations on representative government. Prometheus Books. Morey, A. C., & Eveland, W. P. (2016). Measures of political talk frequency: Assessing reliability and meaning. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 51–68. https:// Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  121. doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118448 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  122. Morey, A. C., Eveland, W. P., & Hutchens, M. J. (2012). The “Who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.641070 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  123. Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27, 49–69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  124. Moscrop, D. R., & Warren, M. E. (2016). When is deliberation democratic? Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), Article 4. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/ art4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  125. Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443– 460. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  126. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  127. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  128. Neblo, M. A. (2015). Deliberative democracy between theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  129. Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review, 3(02), 169–200. https://doi.org/110.1017/S1755773910000330 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  130. Nir, L. (2017). Disagreement in political discussion. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  131. Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  132. Nolas, S.-M., Varvantakis, C., & Aruldoss, V. (2017). Talking politics in everyday family lives. Contemporary Social Science, 12(1-2), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  133. .2017.1330965 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  134. Owen, D., & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the dystemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jopp.12054 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  135. Parkinson, J. (2018). Deliberative systems. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  136. M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 432–446). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  137. Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.) (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  138. Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis. Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  139. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  140. Podschuweit, N. (2017). Interpersonal communication: Media influence on. In P. Rössler, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  141. C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0137 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  142. Podschuweit, N., & Jakobs, I. (2017). “It’s about politics, stupid!”: Common understandings of interpersonal political communication. Communications, 42(4), 391–414. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0021 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  143. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  144. Quinlan, S., Shephard, M., & Paterson, L. (2015). Online discussion and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum: Flaming keyboards or forums for deliberation? Electoral Studies, 38, 192–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.009 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  145. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  146. Richardson, B., & Beck, P. A. (2007). The flow of political information: Personal discussants, the media, and partisans. In R. Gunther, J. R. Montero, & H.-J. Puhle (Eds.), Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents (pp. 183–207). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  147. Robinson, J. P. (1976). Interpersonal influence in election campaigns: Two-step-flow hypotheses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 304–319. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  148. Rosenberg, S. W. (2014). Citizen competence and the psychology of deliberation. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy. Issues and Cases (pp. 98–117). Edinburgh University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  149. Schäfer, A. (2019). Dissimilarity in interpersonal communication and political change. PhD Thesis. Mannheim: University of Mannheim. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  150. Scheuch, E. K. (1965). Die Sichtbarkeit politischer Einstellungen im alltäglichen Verhalten [The visibility of political attitudes in everyday behavior]. In E. K. Scheuch & R. Wil- denmann (Eds.), Zur Soziologie der Wahl (pp. 169–214). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  151. Schmitt-Beck, R. (2000). Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein internationaler Vergleich [Political communication and electoral behavior. An international comparison]. VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  152. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Lup, O. (2013). Seeking the soul of democracy: A review of recent research into citizens’ political talk culture. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4), 513– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  153. 538. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12051 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  154. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Partheymüller, J. (2016). A two-stage theory of discussant influence on vote choice in multi-party systems. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 321–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000301 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  155. Schmitt-Beck, R., Roßteutscher, S., Schoen, H., Weßels, B., & Wolf, C. (2022). A New Era of Electoral Instability, in: R. Schmitt-Beck, S. Roßteutscher, H. Schoen, B. Weßels & C. Wolf (Eds.), The Changing German Voter (pp. 3-24). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  156. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Schäfer, A. (2020). Interpersonale Kommunikation [Interpersonal communication]. In T. Faas, O. W. Gabriel, & J. Maier (Eds.), Politikwissenschaftliche Einstellungs- und Verhaltensforschung (pp. 121–140). Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  157. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies of Mass Communication, 14, 297-309. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  158. Settle, J. E., & Carlson, T. N. (2019). Opting Out of Political Discussions. Political Communication, 36(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  159. Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2019). Personalities discussing politics: The effects of agreement and expertise on discussion frequency and the moderating role of personality traits. International Journal of Communication, 12, 92–115. https://ijoc.org/index. php/ijoc/article/view/8469 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  160. Spies, D. C., & Franzmann, S. T. (2019). Party competition and vote choice. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71(1), 313–342. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11577-019-00611-z Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  161. Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  162. Steiner, J. (2012). The foundations of deliberative demoncracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  163. Straits, B. C. (1991). Bringing strong ties back in. Interpersonal gateways to political information and influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 432–448. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  164. Strandberg, K., & Grönlund, K. (2018). Online deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  165. J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 365–377). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  166. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. http:/services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12 Sullivan, J. L., & Transue, J. E. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  167. selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 625–650. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  168. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  169. Talisse, R. B. (2012). Deliberation. In D. Estlund (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy (pp. 204–222). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  170. Tanasoca, A (2020). Deliberation naturalized: Improving real existing deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  171. Tarde, G. (1969 [1989]). Opinion and conversation. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Gabriel Tarde – On Communication and Social Influence: Selected Papers (pp. 297–318). University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  172. Testa, P. F., Hibbing, M. V., & Ritchie, M. (2014). Orientations toward conflict and the conditional effects of political disagreement. The Journal of Politics, 76(03), 770–785. Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  173. polisci.11.081306.070555 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  174. Tönnies, F. (1963 [1887]). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [Community and society]. Kohlhammer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  175. Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the dark side of political deliberation: The effects of media and political discussion on political interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu035 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  176. Tully, J. (2002). The unfreedom of the Moderns in comparison to their Ideals of constitutional democracy. Modern Law Review, 65(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2230.00375 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  177. Urbinati, N. (2010). Unpolitical democracy. Political Theory, 38(1), 65–92. https://doi. org/10.1177/0090591709348188 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  178. Van Deth, J. W. (1990). Interest in politics. In M. K. Jennings & J. W. van Deth (Eds.), Continuities in Political Action (pp. 275–312). de Gruyter. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  179. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Harper Row. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  180. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., Sidney, V., Kay Lehman, S., & Henry, E. B. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  181. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Burns, N. (2005). Family ties: Understanding the intergenerational transmission of political participation. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (pp. 95–114). Temple University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  182. Völker, B. (2016). Convivium (Who is friends with whom?). In G. Ritzer (Ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc134. pub2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  183. Von Kleist, H. (1951 [1805]). On the gradual construction of thoughts during speech. German Life and Letters, 5(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0483.1951.tb01029.x Weber, M. (1988 [1922]). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre [Collected papers Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  184. on the philosophy of science]. Mohr. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  185. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Polity. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  186. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  187. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  188. Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12(1), 415–438. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media