We take deliberation to be elevated discussion, meaning at minimum, discussion that is (1) substantive, (2) inclusive, (3) responsive, and (4) open-minded. That is, (1) the participants exchange relevant arguments and information. (2) The arguments and information are wide-ranging in nature and policy implications—not all of one kind, not all on one side. (3) The participants react to each other’s arguments and information. And (4) they seriously (re)consider, in light of the discussion, what their own policy attitudes should be.
Deliberative Distortions?
One way to define deliberation would be: “the extent to which the discussion is substantive, inclusive, responsive, and open-minded.” But here, we state the top-end of each as the minimum criteria. So defined, deliberation runs into two issues:
1. It’s posited beneficient effects become becomes a near tautology. If the discussion meets that high bar, how could it not refine preferences?
2. The bar for what counts as deliberation is high enough that I doubt that most deliberative mini-publics come anywhere close to meeting the ideal.