权威与审议时刻:评估深度分裂群体中的平等与不平等

R. Maia, D. Cal, Janine Bargas, V. V. Oliveira, Patrícia G. C. Rossini, Rafael Cardoso Sampaio
{"title":"权威与审议时刻:评估深度分裂群体中的平等与不平等","authors":"R. Maia, D. Cal, Janine Bargas, V. V. Oliveira, Patrícia G. C. Rossini, Rafael Cardoso Sampaio","doi":"10.16997/JDD.283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of equality is central to public deliberation, but few researches have examined how participants construct interactions in face-to-face group discussion involving unequal conditions of authority. This study analyses discussion between slum residents and police officers in Brazil, focusing on both reciprocal and hierarchical relationships in the flow of deliberation. It contributes to explain that the expression of authority is far from straightforward. Looking at a range of authority sources (expertise, functional position, tradition, life experience) that serve to situate and re-situate participants in relation to each other in discussion dynamics helps clarifying what goes on in deliberative moments. Findings reveal that personal experiences prevail in deliberative moments whereas functional credentials predominate in non-deliberative ones. Yet, the case demonstrates that functional authority is not necessarily dominative but can be combined with certain behaviors (such as empathetic imagination, search for commonalities and self-criticism) that lead to reciprocal interactions. This study provides important insights for organizing deliberation more effectively in contexts of fear, mistrust and resentment.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authority and Deliberative Moments: Assessing Equality and Inequality in Deeply Divided Groups\",\"authors\":\"R. Maia, D. Cal, Janine Bargas, V. V. Oliveira, Patrícia G. C. Rossini, Rafael Cardoso Sampaio\",\"doi\":\"10.16997/JDD.283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The notion of equality is central to public deliberation, but few researches have examined how participants construct interactions in face-to-face group discussion involving unequal conditions of authority. This study analyses discussion between slum residents and police officers in Brazil, focusing on both reciprocal and hierarchical relationships in the flow of deliberation. It contributes to explain that the expression of authority is far from straightforward. Looking at a range of authority sources (expertise, functional position, tradition, life experience) that serve to situate and re-situate participants in relation to each other in discussion dynamics helps clarifying what goes on in deliberative moments. Findings reveal that personal experiences prevail in deliberative moments whereas functional credentials predominate in non-deliberative ones. Yet, the case demonstrates that functional authority is not necessarily dominative but can be combined with certain behaviors (such as empathetic imagination, search for commonalities and self-criticism) that lead to reciprocal interactions. This study provides important insights for organizing deliberation more effectively in contexts of fear, mistrust and resentment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":147188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Deliberation\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Deliberation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.283\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Deliberation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

平等的概念是公共审议的核心,但很少有研究调查参与者如何在涉及不平等权力条件的面对面小组讨论中构建互动。本研究分析了巴西贫民窟居民与警察之间的讨论,重点关注审议流程中的互惠关系和等级关系。它有助于解释权威的表达远非直截了当。查看一系列权威资源(专业知识、职能职位、传统、生活经验),这些资源有助于在讨论动态中定位和重新定位参与者之间的关系,有助于澄清审议时刻发生的事情。研究结果表明,个人经历在协商时刻占主导地位,而功能凭证在非协商时刻占主导地位。然而,该案例表明,功能性权威并不一定是支配性的,而是可以与某些行为(如移情想象、寻找共性和自我批评)相结合,从而导致相互作用。这项研究为在恐惧、不信任和怨恨的情况下更有效地组织审议提供了重要的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Authority and Deliberative Moments: Assessing Equality and Inequality in Deeply Divided Groups
The notion of equality is central to public deliberation, but few researches have examined how participants construct interactions in face-to-face group discussion involving unequal conditions of authority. This study analyses discussion between slum residents and police officers in Brazil, focusing on both reciprocal and hierarchical relationships in the flow of deliberation. It contributes to explain that the expression of authority is far from straightforward. Looking at a range of authority sources (expertise, functional position, tradition, life experience) that serve to situate and re-situate participants in relation to each other in discussion dynamics helps clarifying what goes on in deliberative moments. Findings reveal that personal experiences prevail in deliberative moments whereas functional credentials predominate in non-deliberative ones. Yet, the case demonstrates that functional authority is not necessarily dominative but can be combined with certain behaviors (such as empathetic imagination, search for commonalities and self-criticism) that lead to reciprocal interactions. This study provides important insights for organizing deliberation more effectively in contexts of fear, mistrust and resentment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信