Page 118 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

assemble, communicate, and listen to one another, and a second phase that involved understanding

the process of deliberation.

With respect to conflict, tension, and disagreement, Rostboll (2008) approached such

issues from the perspective of diversity and tolerance, noting that tolerance leads to a form of blind

acceptance in which divergent perspectives are taken without question. This is contrary to the aim

of deliberative democracy and the prospect of generative learning.

Actually, I find the use of toleration as requiring us not to question or discuss the

fundamental views of others misplaced. An intrinsic value of deliberation is that we are treated as

persons capable of responding to and giving reasons. To respect someone is not to accept his views

but rather to discuss them. (Rostboll, 2008, p. 202)

As an example of this, Rostboll (2008) used the term argue when describing conflict and

disagreement among participants, commenting, “arguing with someone cannot be regarded as

limiting freedom but on the contrary is a necessary condition of free opinion formation and mutual

respect” (p. 203). Plato and Aristotle can even agree that arguments for excellent moral character

involves more than a just a simple understanding of good views. Within virtue they required a co-

existence between cognitive and affective elements in having perspective. Aristotle attempts to

explain to desire the good for the others' own sakes ought to turn political institutions that promote

the conditions under which expression and friendship flourish (Homaik, Stanford.edu, 2011).

Intergroup Contact

The premise of intergroup contact is based on the nearly 65-year-old psychology-based

contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), which posited that situations in which meaningful interactions

between individuals can occur can lead to opportunities for improved relationships (Amir, 1969).

99