Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The quality standards for public deliberative debate, including in the media, call for a theory-driven conceptualisation and evaluation strategy. The core aim should be to centrally include the usefulness and function, or functions, that the debate may serve for the issue being debated, and its unadulterated communication to the audience.
Debate means discourse with two or more participants who hold divergent views on the subject, or subjects, of the discourse, and who take turns speaking or writing in support of their views.
The debate may occur at a certain venue at a given time, but some debates unfold without fixed beginnings or endpoints and across several venues and occasions, including all media platforms.
The core function of argumentation in a democratic setting must be to provide a modality for citizens to engage with differences of opinion constructively, not only in the present but also in future exchanges. To enable this function requires acceptance of the basic conditions of public debate and an inherent capacity to listen.
Consensus, in a democracy, is often an illusory goal. It should perhaps be replaced by an acceptance of living with dissent and compromise.
Debates call for an understanding of the complexity of real-life public exchanges, which are an intermixture of claims of fact, definition, value and policy. Each of these calls for an awareness of the greater “debate environment” of which particular deliberative exchanges are a part.
Rhetoric, as an evaluation criterion for public debates, is not necessarily an indicator of substance. It can create room for artificial differences of opinion and tend to stray from the core subject matter, thereby distorting the real debate culture.
This conception is less instrumental and more concerned with the role of communication in public life and the maintenance of the electoral state. A rhetorical meta-norm of public argumentation can be useful when evaluating public argumentation.
In rhetoric, the tendency is to contextualise our claims through examples of authentic contemporary public argumentation.
It may sound strange when we suggest that public argumentation is not about getting the last word. After all, citizens typically enter public debate with the aim of promoting their own views or suggestions, in the hope that they will win the day, in other words, that they will get the last word.
This approach to public argumentation is what is sometimes referred to as “strategic” and identified as “the rhetorical dimension” of argumentation.
We agree that rhetoric is about trying to make other people see things in a particular way. Most times, however, it is not the whole story, and certainly not when it comes to the norms of public communication.
Our suggestion is that regardless of how gratifying getting the last word may seem for the individual, and regardless of the quality of argument on either side, a “winner takes it all” mentality rarely solves community problems.
The need to share information and reach acceptable common solutions requires a debate culture characterised by a level of civility that accepts not just differences of opinion, but also differences in values, suggestions for action, and, not least, understandings of reality.
By analysing how disagreement plays out in relation to different kinds of claims, we can contribute to a more nuanced awareness of the nature of disagreement and how the ideal of “keeping the conversation going” can be practised in relation to different kinds of claims.
Causes of the Debate Breakdown
- Social Media Incentives: Platforms can reward extreme or inflammatory statements with greater visibility, likes and shares.
- Echo Chambers: People may consume information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs rather than actively seeking different perspectives. Research on digital platforms identifies this as a potential contributor to polarisation and confirmation bias.
- Cable News Tactics: Networks may have incentives to attract and retain audiences, sometimes encouraging confrontational formats rather than extended and nuanced discussion.
- Bad-Faith Engagement: Participants may argue to attack, control or mock opponents rather than to reach greater understanding.
Impact on Society
- Erosion of Trust: Citizens can become increasingly suspicious of institutions, experts and differing viewpoints. Mis- and disinformation can further undermine trust and public discussion.
- Polarisation: Complex policy issues can be reduced to rigid, two-sided contests, leaving little room for nuance, compromise or consideration of competing claims.
- External Interference: Foreign and domestic actors can exploit divisions through online influence operations and the manipulation or amplification of information. This is a recognised risk to democratic public debate.
The objective, therefore, should not be to eliminate disagreement. Disagreement is intrinsic to public life and democracy. The objective should be to create a culture in which disagreement can be expressed, examined and contested without destroying the possibility of the next conversation.
Col KL Viswanathan is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs
commentator. The views are personal.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.