Houston Euler Postulates

Continuing from where I left off in part 2, but at a different pace.

The next part of the framework they address is the “Communicative Throughput Level”, which “refers to the question of how people should communicate.”

They identify “six frequently used dimensions of deliberation.”:

1. Rationality – “But what exactly constitutes rational discourse? Stromer-Galley (2007) introduces the variable of topic relevance as one feature of rationality, and Trénel (2004) points out that rational debate requires participants to stay on topic. In the same vein, Graham and Witschge (2003) focus on coherence, analyzing lines of discussion to see whether people stick to the topic.”
   “Another frequently used measure is what StromerGalley (2007) called sourcing; this measure captures whether participants provide external information or sources like mass media articles, empirical evidence, or studies. Similarly, Black et al. (2011), analyzing deliberation in Wikipedia, introduce the information base, which indicates whether users present basic information to start from, while Trénel (2004) uses information request, which captures whether participants ask for more information.”
2. Interactivity – “deliberation is a social process of giving and taking, which includes both listening and responding (Barber, 1984, p. 175). Arguments should not just be articulated, but rather also listened and replied to.”
3. Equality – “This dimension touches on the condition of inclusiveness and accessibility, which is also relevant on the input level. On the communicative throughput level, we focus on the equal opportunity to articulate arguments and to reply to other participants’ claims. Everybody who is affected by a policy should have the same opportunity to participate in deliberation (Habermas, 1996). Normatively, it is crucial that every claim is treated equally and has the same chance to be deliberated.”
4. Civility – “First of all, this dimension reflects the need for mutual recognition of the participants in the sense that everybody is recognized as an equal actor able to speak in his or her own manner. This mutual recognition is the fundamental premise for reaching rational consensus by the balanced exchange of arguments, including respectful listening (Barber, 1984). Trénel (2004, p. 3) points out that being ready to be convinced by others requires showing respect and empathy toward the other participants.”
5. Common Good Reference – “In an ideal process of deliberation, participants justify their positions by referring to the common good (Bächtiger & Wyss, 2013). Framing the arguments in the “perspective of the common good enables participants from diverging interest groups to convince each other” (Trénel, 2004, p. 18).”
6. Constructiveness – “This dimension is related to rationality, which implies a constructive atmosphere in which consensus is the final goal (Habermas, 1996). Consequently, the orientation toward a common ground and agreement is a fundamental part of deliberation.”

All of these seem useful to consider, but two stand out.

Part of Number 4, where “everybody is recognized as an equal actor able to speak in his or her own manner”, reminds me of a Discord server I was once a member of. They claimed to have standards of civility and respect, but I knew I needed to leave when I saw how those standards were weaponized against people from other backgrounds. The group was generally intolerable of anyone who didn’t speak with the type of language they deemed to be respectful, and would attack people who joined the group and used disrespectful language, even thought they were just using the vernacular they were familiar with.

It makes me wonder whether it’s possible for a group to maintain its values, while also respecting that others might feel unwelcome to contribute, if they’re attacked for simply being born and raised under different circumstances. The difficulty is that you might end up tolerating trolls, and making your community worse.

Constructiveness is also really important, because I feel it’s sorely lacking from online platforms. Discussion just seem to occur, they might have a topic, but it’s hard to identify goals, and how the discussion helps the group reach those goals.

That’s why I think a platform that structures the conversation relative to those goal, and potential obstacles, is a potential path to better governance.

I still have part of this paper left, that I’ll save for my next post, but I’m hoping that reading more of these will help me figure out a structure that might work.