Page 123 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

consideration of alternatives; thought plus action, or more precisely thought that goes into action”

(p. 53). This form of deliberation originated from the classic Socratic method of learning and

exchange as a similarly constructed dyadic model of deliberation of challenge and response. This

model is particularly useful to deliberative democracy in that it is not limited to a “set number of

conversational partners” (Gunderson, 2000, p. 59). Reason giving is a way of maintaining balance

and equity between dialogue partners and participants, using the dyadic model of “challenge and

response” (p. 63) to fuel deliberation. Applying this model fostered a type of civic engagement

that “asks not that deliberation lead immediately to collective action, but that it takes collective

action as its object” (p. 67). Gunderson’s (2000) theory of the Socratic citizen carefully explored

the intersections and connections within foundational deliberative theories. However, in reviewing

countering arguments it seems related authors (Habermas 1989; Leonard 1990; Dryzek 1987,

2000, 2005) did not explore the gap between dyadic dialogue and group dialogue nor did they

attempt to bridge the two. The relationship between dyadic and group dialogue is a particularly

important concept for this research, because it is likely that conflicts and disagreements result in

some degree of emergence and resolution in dyadic expressions and interactions within the

framework of the deliberative setting which can influence “Metasphere” affecting the space

containing engagement.

In terms of the dimension of interaction, it may be useful to recall Habermas as well as

other writers, such as Dewey (1954), who argue that a “public” should be conceptualized as

something other than just a media audience. Publics, according to Habermas and Dewey, exist as

discursive interactional processes; atomized individuals, consuming media in their homes, do not

comprise a public. With the advent of the public opinion industry (cf. Splichal, 1999; Lewis, 2001),

the focus on aggregate statistics of individual views became established. While such approaches

104