Search

Polarization and various extremist movements are on the rise and young people’s exposure to propaganda, disinformation, racism and hate speech has increased (Benjamin et al., 2021). Not only the society tends to be more polarized, but there is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to it by creating echo chambers that insulate people from opposing views about current events (Bail et al., 2018; Kubin and von Sikorski, 2021). Since teachers are at the forefront of these trends, they get to witness and address first-hand the effects and consequences that the various polarized ideologies may have on youth. Therefore, developing a global perspective that allows students to participate in an interconnected world, understand different viewpoints, learn to dialogue, value other cultures, and benefit from interculturality has become the objectives of world educational policy (Azqueta and Menino Arribas, 2020). The aim of this paper is to discuss the topic of polarization and then focus on two socio-pedagogical frameworks that are useful in this field: deliberative theory and reflexive practices.

A supremacia judicial pode ser caracterizada como a doutrina que fundamenta a possibilidade da suprema corte dizer, de acordo com a sua visão do texto constitucional, o que a lei é de forma conclusiva. Este trabalho parte do pressuposto de que a teoria da democracia deliberativa, ao postular um modelo de sociedade descentralizado e construído intersubjetivamente por meio de uma discussão aberta entre os distintos atores político-sociais, pode também ser utilizada como uma tese crítica à supremacia judicial. Assim, utilizando-se dos estudos de Gargarella, o presente artigo buscará, com base na visão de democracia deliberativa do autor, demonstrar que a supremacia judicial é prejudicial à democracia, na medida em que retira dos cidadãos a decisão final dos temas sociais mais importantes e os transfere para um poder político supremo.The judicial supremacy can be characterized as the doctrine that underlies the possibility of the supreme court to say, according with its vision of the constitutional text, what the law is conclusively. This paper assumes that the theory of deliberative democracy, by to postulating a decentralized model of society, constructed intersubjectively through an open discussion among the various political and social actors, can also be used as a critical theory to judicial supremacy. Thus, using the Gargarella studies this article will look, based on his vision of deliberative democracy to demonstrate that judicial supremacy is harmful to democracy, because the it removes citizens from the final decision of most important social issues, and transfers them to a supreme political power.

Como se pode encerrar uma deliberação? Qual o resultado concreto que um fórum deliberativo pode transmitir às instituições e ao público? A teoria deliberativa não é clara sobre isso, embora a prática tenda a oscilar entre diferentes soluções. Em princípio, a conclusão de uma deliberação deveria responder a dois critérios: fidelidade e univocidade. Porém, como esses critérios são contraditórios, tende-se a privilegiar um ou outro nas experiências concretas. Analisando seus dispositivos mais difundidos, o artigo considera quatro tipos de encerramento - dois visam mais à fidelidade (as "conclusões reflexo") e dois visam à univocidade (as "conclusões proposição") - e avalia os pontos fortes e fracos de cada um.How can we end a deliberation? What is the concrete result that a deliberative forum may address to the institutions and the public? The deliberative theory is not clear on this issue, while the practice tends to switch between different solutions. In principle, the conclusion of a deliberation should meet two criteria: faithfulness and straightforwardness. Since these criteria are contradictory, practical experiences tend to favour one of them. Through the analysis of the most diffused practices, the paper considers four types of conclusions, two of them point mostly on fidelity (the "mirror conclusions") and two on straightforwardness (the "proposal conclusions"). The strengths and weaknesses of these four types of conclusion are then evaluated.

A teoria deliberativa passa por mudanças significativas em seus pressupostos fundamentais. Para acomodar conceitos como autointeresse, poder e conflito e outras formas de comunicação, tais como barganha, essa teoria revisa atualmente os pressupostos que a orientava. Nesse movimento, ela se aproxima de outras abordagens clássicas da teoria democrática, como o pluralismo e o neocorporativismo. Este artigo tem um duplo objetivo: (1) analisar tais mudanças e (2) aferir as potencialidades e os limites das mesmas para a teoria em tela.A deliberative theory has undergone significant changes in their fundamental assumptions. To accommodate concepts such as self-interest, conflict and power and other forms of communication as a bargain, this theory has revised the initial assumptions that oriented it. In this move, it becomes more similar to other traditional approaches to democratic theory, such as pluralism and neo-corporatism. This article has two aims: (1) to analyze such changes; and (2) to evaluate the potential and limits of such changes to deliberative theory.

New initiatives in deliberative democracy theory allow for a broader understanding of the different rhetorical practices that influence deliberation in real life settings. This solves the “problem” rhetoricians have long had with deliberative theory: that political communication is reduced to rational deliberation, disregarding a lot of non-deliberative forms of communication that are essential for the formation of public opinion and political decisions. This article elaborates on the role of epideictic rhetoric and provides an example as to how we might benefit from combining the two theoretical traditions. Often reduced to ceremonial practice, the epideictic genre has long been overlooked in political communication research. However, epideictic rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity and values, thereby influencing citizens’ and politicians’ inclinations and scope of action in future deliberation. The article is concluded by a case study of the Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg’s address to the nation after the terrorist attack in Oslo on July 22nd 2011. By enforcing collective values such as democracy, solidarity, and openness towards other cultures the Prime Minister’s speech contributed to what became one of the dominant frames through which the attack and related issues were interpreted and debated.

This paper details a content analysis scheme to measure the quality of political deliberation in face-to-face and online groups. Much of deliberation research studies the outcomes of deliberation, but there has been a lack of analysis of what groups actually do when tasked with deliberating. The coding scheme was developed out of the theoretical literature on deliberation and further enhanced by the empirical literature on small groups, deliberation, online political talk, and conversation analysis. Strict standards for creating coding schemes were followed to ensure a valid and reliable coding process. Results of the coding of deliberations on the topic of public schools suggest that participants produced a fairly high level of reasoned opinion expression, but not necessarily on the topic which they were asked to deliberate. It is hoped that the code scheme can be utilized by practitioners and researchers of political and social deliberations.