More than Words: A Multidimensional Approach to Deliberative Democracy
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321720950561 |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Author | Selen A Ercan,Hans Asenbaum,Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720950561
Political Studies
2022, Vol. 70(1) 153 –172
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321720950561
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
More than Words: A
Multidimensional Approach
to Deliberative Democracy
Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça1,
Selen A Ercan2 and Hans Asenbaum2
Abstract
Since its inception, a core aspiration of deliberative democracy has been to enable more and
better inclusion within democratic politics. In this article, we argue that deliberative democracy
can achieve this aspiration only if it goes beyond verbal forms of communication and acknowledges
the crucial role of non-verbal communication in expressing and exchanging arguments. The article
develops a multidimensional approach to deliberative democracy by emphasizing the visual, sonic
and physical dimensions of communication in public deliberation. We argue that non-verbal modes
of communication can contribute to public deliberation when they (1) are used as part of reason-
giving processes, (2) enable the inclusion of marginalized actors in public debates and (3) induce
reflection and encourage new ways of thinking about the public controversies at hand.
Keywords
deliberative democracy, non-verbal communication, image, sound, public sphere
Accepted: 25 July 2020
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . .
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.
– Gospel of John 1:1
Nature, as we say, does nothing without some purpose; and she has endowed man alone
among the animals with the power of speech. . . . Speech . . . serves to indicate what is
useful and what is harmful, and so also what is just and what is unjust.
– Aristotle
1Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Corresponding author:
Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627. Fafich/DCP, Belo
Horizonte, MG 31270-901, Brazil.
Email: ricardofabrino@hotmail.com
950561PSX0010.1177/0032321720950561Political StudiesMendonça et al.
research-article2020
Article
154 Political Studies 70(1)
Western societies are characterized by a logocentric culture, in which words, either spo-
ken or written, are seen as the fundamental form of expression. As the above quotes sug-
gest, speech has been viewed as the defining feature of the human subject in both religion
and philosophy. Words are considered to be the main medium through which humans can
understand and communicate the truth, contribute to knowledge production and make
moral decisions (Rorty, 1967). Words are also central in contemporary political theory
(Rollo, 2018), in the conception of ‘free speech’ in liberal theory, in the development of
structuralist and poststructuralist theories (e.g. Butler, 1990) and in normative under-
standings of democracy, most notably in deliberative democracy (e.g. Habermas, 1992
[1962]). In fact, deliberative democracy is defined as a ‘talk-centric’ mode of democracy,
where the exchange of arguments (rather than the aggregation of interests or votes) has a
normative priority over other forms of political expression (Chambers, 2003). In a delib-
erative process, participants are required to talk with each other; they are required to
articulate and exchange reasons for the positions they hold and listen to the views of oth-
ers (Bächtiger and Parkinson, 2019).
In deliberative democracy, this process of talking and listening is usually portrayed as
taking place in a forum setting, such as citizens’ assemblies and parliaments, where partici-
pants meet face to face, present their views, and accept or challenge the views of others
through verbal communication. While such face-to-face communication, and a group of
participants sitting around tables and talking to each other, is a typical portrayal of delibera-
tive democracy in action, it represents only one particular view of deliberation. This ‘micro’
view of small-group face-to-face deliberation has often been challenged or complemented
with a ‘macro’ view of deliberative democracy. Scholars advocating a macro view rightly
argue that deliberation takes place not only in structured forums but also in the broader
public sphere (Habermas, 1996; Hendriks, 2006). Here, public deliberation occurs through
the contestation of discourses (Dryzek, 2000) produced by a variety of actors, including
activists, state institutions, the media and citizens (Mansbridge et al., 2012). Compared to
structured forums, deliberation in public sphere involves a richer variety of communicative
repertoires, including a range of non-verbal modes of expression such as symbols, images
or even silences (Couldry, 2010; Papacharissi, 2010). In fact, non-verbal modes of expres-
sion are becoming increasingly more important in conceiving contemporary public spheres,
which inhabit multiple forms of this kind of expression (Dahlberg, 2018).
While the modes of expression available to citizens of contemporary public spheres
continue to grow, ranging from online to face-to-face settings, and going beyond verbal
or textual expressions, many critical questions remain unanswered especially from a per-
spective of deliberative democracy. Is a text- and talk-based understanding of deliberation
still relevant to make sense of what is going on in contemporary public spheres? Or
should we expand our understanding of deliberative democracy and make it more attuned
to the non-verbal forms of communication? What contribution, if any, can non-verbal
communication make to the public deliberation in public sphere? While non-verbal forms
of expression have always been part of discursive interactions (Doerr et al., 2015; Hill
and Helmers, 2009; Tully, 2016), they have received only scant attention from the schol-
ars of deliberative democracy (Curato et al., 2019; Rollo, 2017; Hendriks et al., 2020). In
this article, we seek to conceptualize the role of non-verbal expression in public delibera-
tion by focusing particularly on the visual, sonic and physical dimensions of communica-
tion and the role they play in public deliberation. Our argument is that non-verbal
communication is as important as verbal communication in deliberative democracy. Both
forms of communication can be subject to same rules and requirements. They become
To continue reading
Request your trial