Page 125 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

1. As a self-limiting process, action focused, deliberation may end before consensus is

achieved;

2. Political [or any kind] of discourse which is always open to dissent;

3. An objective of political compromise is to accommodate incompatibilities; and

4. Philosophy and conflict are a natural occurrence and the essence of Socratic process. (p.

88)

By acknowledging that deliberation is “neither purely cooperative nor purely conflictual”

(Gunderson, 2000, p. 89) created a more realistic and real-world perspective about the intersection

of conflict within the context of deliberation. Dialogue and deliberation that fosters discourse of

consensus and dissensus produces new understandings, insights, and learning (Gunderson, 2000).

The dyadic model of deliberation and its handling of conflict and consensus fits within this

research. As a theory, dyadic deliberation is based on utilization of the Socratic Method to help

dialogue participants determine what separates them, thereby creating an empowered citizenry.

Gunderson (2000) reflected on his assessment of conflict and consensus in the context of the

dyadic model and political learning as follows: “the more individual citizens are capable of

defining issues, the more they set the agenda, and the more the public sector must respond to them,

rather than vice versa” (p. 91).

It is also important to note for the purposes of my research specifically how Gunderson

(2000) diverged from rational models of deliberative democracy by acknowledging the expression

of emotion by participants in discourse and deliberation. He outlined a typology of emotions with

a view to identifying particular emotions that are useful in fostering deliberation.

106