Guttman: Dilemmas and Contradictions Abound!

Guttman, N. (2007). Bringing the mountain to the public: Dilemmas and contradictions in the procedures of public deliberation initiatives that aim to get “ordinary citizens” to deliberate policy issues. Communication Theory, 17(4), 411-438. Reviewed by Laura.

• Scholars have already outlined a number of normative conditions for making deliberative forums “work.” Drawing on a number of scholars’ previous approaches to this project, Guttman outlines these broad concerns as follows:
1. Fairness: Can all participants get to the meetings (i.e., physical access)? Do all participants receive an “equitable opportunity to influence the decision-making process”? (p. 414).
2. Competence: Do participants understand the issues and their implications? Are they able to assess and understand the “technical information” involved?
3. The discursive process: “Will participants be attentive and respectful of each other” and, instead of just arguing, engage in “mutual learning” (p. 414)? Will sufficient time be allotted for contemplation and discussion?
4. Power: Will participants be able to influence the process or the outcome of the process? Do they have any say in how issues are framed, presented, discussed, etc.? Will they be able to avoid “uncritical adoption of dominant assumptions” (p. 416)?
• To account for the concerns listed above, policymakers must ensure “fairness physical, psychological, cognitive, and cultural access in the discursive process” (p. 416). More specifically:
o Attendance at the meeting (i.e., being able to overcome physical or cultural barriers to get there)
o Materials and information on the topic
o Confidence to express oneself
o Participation in the discussion itself (i.e., “turn-taking”)

• Using the four categories listed above, the author first presents evidence of how the Israeli Health Parliament Initiative (the case study described) strove to meet these considerations (e.g., employing facilitators, providing background materials in a variety of formats and at a variety of literacy levels, employing “consultants” to answer the participants’ questions, etc.). Representative quotations from the deliberation are presented to illustrate the participants’ reactions to these different aspects of the process; most participants seemed fairly happy with it.

• Guttman then presents us with the paradox that makes up the crux of this paper (and his contribution to the literature): “The attempt to make the participative processes more ‘competent’ appears to present a paradox: The more procedures are proffered to enhance competence (i.e., various information resources, simulation activities, consultants), the more occasions there are to frame the issues according to those in power” (p. 426). For example:
o The framing dilemma: If participants begin to discuss the concerns of the many more than their own, personal concerns, does that represent a “stronger conception of the public good” (p. 426) or “co-optation” by the elite?
o The responsibility dilemma: Does the participative process empower (by entrusting citizens with unique responsibility) or does it “absolve” officials from “making unpopular decisions or from seeking alternative solutions” (p. 428)?
o The empathy with the officials dilemma: When participants feel more empathy or trust towards public officials, is this a positive advancement of the democratic process, or “does it reflect a co-optation” (p. 429)?

• Guttman ends by noting that practitioners and theoreticians alike need to be aware of the dilemmas or contradictions that can emerge as a result of trying to meet the stipulations of participative processes. He suggests that practitioners may be able to distinguish between “avoidable” or “unavoidable contradictions” (p. 431).

• He also mentions the idea of calling for “policy literacy” among citizen participants, some sort of amalgamation of literacy and critical theory approaches, according to which, “people’s capacities should be enhanced to critically analyze information that can affect policy decisions and to critically understand institutional processes that affect problem definition and how it may be influenced by the terminology or the language used” (p. 431).

My reaction:
I find Guttman’s three dilemmas compelling, much in the way that I appreciated his earlier work on the ethical dilemmas posed by public health communication campaigns. I’m left to question, however, how it is that we can tell (I suppose, empirically) whether “co-optation” has occurred, as opposed to the other, more positive alternative? Guttman does not appear to address this issue. At the close of the article, when the author posits other theoretical areas that should be in conversation regarding participative deliberation, I think that he ignores the contributions of educational theory, particularly in regard to civic formal and informal efforts. The literature on educating for democracy (e.g., the need to “listen across difference” that Walter Parker talks about) could be very relevant to Guttman’s conception of “policy literacy.”