The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty (The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication) 3031234650, 9783031234651

Citation preview

THE PALGRAVE MACMILLAN SERIES IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL COMMUNICATION SERIES EDITOR: ALISTER MISKIMMON

The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty

Rousiley C.M. Maia Gabriella Hauber Tariq Choucair

The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication Series Editor

Alister Miskimmon History, Anthropology, Philosophy & Politics Queen’s University Belfast Belfast, UK

From democratization to terrorism, economic development to conflict resolution, global political dynamics are affected by the increasing pervasiveness and influence of communication media. This series examines the participants and their tools, their strategies and their impact. This series is indexed in Scopus.

Rousiley C. M. Maia Gabriella Hauber • Tariq Choucair

The Deliberative System and InterConnected Media in Times of Uncertainty

Rousiley C. M. Maia The Federal University of Minas Gerais Belo Horizonte, Brazil Tariq Choucair The Federal University of Minas Gerais Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Gabriella Hauber Federal University of Technology—Paraná Paraná, Brazil

ISSN 2945-6118     ISSN 2945-6126 (electronic) The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication ISBN 978-3-031-23465-1    ISBN 978-3-031-23466-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover Art - Wooden Craft Panel: Rousiley C. M. Maia Cover Photography: Rafael Maia Salomão This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, SwitzerlandC

Preface

The effort to develop a systemic approach to include different arenas, categories of actors and communicative interactions in the analysis has been central to theoretical inquiries and empirical investigations in our Media and Public Sphere Research Group at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (EME/UFMG), Brazil. From the late 1990s, when the term “deliberative system” appeared in the literature, and particularly from 2005, when the notions of “distribution” and “moments” came to the fore, we, the scholars of political communication, have felt pressured to understand the diversity of communicative exchanges at different scales. The overall idea and empirical chapters of this book were presented in the colloquium “The Deliberative System and Interconnected Media”, which we organized in Belo Horizonte, UFMG, in October 2015. We thank the keynote speakers Jennifer Stromer-Galley, John Parkinson, Peter Dahlgren and our dear research partners Hartmut Wessler and Jürg Steiner (in memoriam). Since this colloquium, we have been working on this book. My first project that sought to explore different research cases proved too ambitious and unfeasible for a single book, and had to be abandoned. While writing this book, we have lost our dear friend and research partner Jürg Steiner—who also served as an external advisor to Gabriella Hauber during her doctoral internship, in collaboration with Hartmut Wessler. Jürg Steiner’s generosity, enthusiasm and lessons have stayed with us forever. We are grateful to give continuity to the project we started with him, “Deliberation in Public Schools: Developing Deliberative Capacities”, in order to honour his memory. v

vi 

PREFACE

The present book is the result of theoretical and empirical accumulation of several research projects, separate Ph.D dissertations—which I find useful to describe here by name. By focusing on distinct juridical norms or policy programs, a first body of Ph.D. dissertations developed by Angela S. Marques, Ricardo F. Mendonça and Edna Miola systematically investigated the debates taking place simultaneously in a selected set of different institutions or places (parliaments or citizens’ assemblies, civic association meetings, media, informal citizen discussions) over a period of time, in order to assess the inclusion and exclusion of claims in different arenas and arguments that generate consensus or dissent. In this line, some Ph.D. works such as those developed by Márcio S. Henriques and Danila Cal, focused on governmental policy agents or civic associations’ processual interactions with affected community or concerned groups, to demonstrate claim-making and claim receiving and different faces of power. A second generation of research investigated the complex nature of mediation and the construction of visibility such as Diógenes Lycarião’s Ph.D.  dissertation on journalistic mediation and translation of climate change transnational debate, from specialised language (operating in different forums) to common language. Vanessa V. Oliveira’s doctoral dissertation explored the circulation of justifications and personal stories in truth commission meetings, social media, and news reports; and the doctoral dissertation by Janine Bargas evaluated, through ethnographic observation in traditional communities (Quilombolas), the relationships of sociability and social conflict to build specific political demands, which are transposed from daily life to different types of social media. A systemic approach was also adopted to deal with political representation, as Regiane L. Garcêz’s Ph.D. dissertation investigated deaf people’s claims in internal meetings of Deaf national association, in citizen conferences and social networks. Alicianne Gonçalves’ doctoral dissertation explored the political representation of the black movement segmented into different types of entities, performances and levels in media ecology. Finally, a more recent round of Ph.D.  dissertations has been more explicitly concerned with disruptions in the public sphere. The incivility and intolerance in online political discussion about news on political issues and in different digital environments was investigated by Patricia Rossini. Leonardo Santa Inês analysed the exchange of reasons by parliamentarians in a commission to build a policy to combat urban crime and, simultaneously, in iterative communication on their social networks, also researching attacks on human rights. Gabriella Hauber investigated the role of

 PREFACE 

vii

emotions in deliberation on the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility and the Feminicide Law in different arenas. Some doctoral works, such as those by Tariq Choucair have advanced multidimensional analysis, combining argument analysis and frame analysis to assess abortion discussions in legislatures and polarization in several sites on the periphery of the political system. Currently, Maiara Orlandini’s Ph.D. research investigates the dynamics of politicization and depoliticization in feminist hashtag activism; Bruna Silveira’s explores intolerance and distorted demands for recognition promoted by extremist groups; and Julia E. de Paula analyses problems of epistemic crises, information accuracy and mobilization of anti-vaccine groups. I am grateful to all these people, as well as to several post-docs, masters and undergraduate students who did research at EME/ UFMG—too many to mention here. The collaboration of this team allowed the investigation of different concepts of deliberative democracy and political communication, separate operationalization and measures that provide us with guidelines to articulate the micro and macro analytical levels. Gabriella Hauber and Tariq Choucair, co-authors of this book, participated in several of our research projects in addition to their master’s thesis  and doctoral dissertations. I have no words to thank them for their collaboration and willingness to enter into constructive discussions on all fronts. I thank Neylson Crepalde for his assistance in analysis in this work. Special thanks also to Daniela Francione and Julio Saulo, undergraduate students in Social Sciences at UFMG, who have helped us enormously in the elaboration of this manuscript and tables since its first version in April 2021. Part of Chap. 3 was presented in a lecture given at the VII Congress of Communication, Journalism and Public Space – The Transformations of the Public Sphere – 60 years after Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, in July 2022, at the University of Coimbra. I am grateful for the stimulating discussions and special thanks to Carlos Camponez and Susana Borges for their generous hospitality. I thank the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive feedback and the commitment of our editors at Palgrave/ Springer Nature. Finally, I am grateful for the financial support of different Brazilian research agencies, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and the National Institute of Science and Technology in Democracy and Democratisation of Communication (INCT/ IDDC).

viii 

PREFACE

I acknowledge the Institute of Advanced Transdisciplinary Studies (IEAT/ UFMG) for sustaining my current sabatical year in this institute at the Federal University of Minas Gerais; and the recent support from  the National Institute of Science and Technology in Information Disputes and Sovereignty (INCT/DSI). Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Rousiley C. M. Maia

Acknowledgments

To Elmo and to the memory of my Grandparents, Turu, Mira, Melita and Nicolau, for always being by my side, loving and caring. (Rousiley Maia) To my parents, Sylvia and Euler, who always supported my studies. (Gabriella Hauber) To my parents, Alice and Osvaldo, and my sister, Barbara, for all our great conversations and wonderful memories. (Tariq Choucair)

ix

Praise for The Deliberative System and InterConnected Media in Times of Uncertainty “To understand democracies requires seeing many things at once—the granular lives of citizens, the flow of information and arguments, surges of emotion in digital media, and the social rules and institutions that give us laws, elections, and more. This book shows how these elements interconnect within a deliberative system. Only by grasping such systems can we save them from internal collapse and external threats” —Professor John Gastil, Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Department of Political Science, Penn State University, USA “Deliberation will play an important role in our working through the challenging times we are facing. Professor Maia and colleagues are presenting the complexities of today’s public sphere and their effect on decision-making while offering a comprehensive framework for understanding what is needed communicatively to meet today’s challenges”. —Professor R. Lance Holbert, Department of Communication and Social Influence, Klein College of Media and Communication, Temple University; Distinguished Research Fellow, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Normative  Controversies: Challenges to Apply a Systemic Approach to Deliberation 13 3 Bringing  the Public Sphere and the Media Back to the Systemic Approach 29 4 Justifications as a Linkage Mechanism 45 5 Reason-Giving across Arenas: Elite Actors 65 6 Reason-Giving across Arenas: Broader Public of Citizens 95 7 The Emotional Dimension of Reason-Giving127 8 Emotions and Reasoning in Divided Groups145

xiii

xiv 

Contents

9 Conclusion and Research Outlook171 References179 Index219

About the Authors

Rousiley C. M. Maia  is Full-Professor of Political Communication at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. She is a researcher of National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), coordinator of the Research Group in Media and the Public Sphere (EME/UFMG) and member of the Institute of Democracy and Democratization of the Communication (INCT/IDDC). Currently, she is Resident Professor at the Institute of Advanced Transdisciplinary Studies  of UFMG (IEAT/ UFMG) and member the National Institute of Science and Technology in Information Disputes and Sovereignty (INCT/DSI).  She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Nottingham University, UK.  She is the author of Deliberation across Deeply Divided Societies (with J.  Steiner, M.  C. Jaramillo and S.  Mamelli, 2017, Cambridge University Press), Recognition and the Media (2014, Palgrave Macmillan), Deliberation, the Media and Political Talk (2012, Hampton Press), Media e Deliberação (2008, FGV) and Comunicação e Democracia (with Wilson Gomes, 2008, Paulus). Her work has been published in journals such as European Political Science Review, Political Studies, Policy Science, Journal of Public Deliberation, Human Communication Research, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of Communication, The International  Journal of Press/Politics, Representation and Journal of Political Power. She served as associate editor of Journal of Communication and is Latin American editor of Journal of Information, Communication & Society.

xv

xvi 

About the Authors

Gabriella Hauber  was a postdoctoral researcher at the Federal University of Minas Gerais when this book was written, currently she is Assistant Professor in the Department of Language and Communication at the Federal University of Technology—Paraná, Brazil. She has a PhD in Communication from Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil and is a research associate in the Research Group in Media and the Public Sphere (EME/UFMG). Her research focuses on deliberation, emotion and issues of violence, including the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility, founded by CAPES Foundation and CNPq (Brazilian Ministry of Education). Her work has been published in journals such as Political Studies, Journal of Public Deliberation, Policy Science, Human Communication Research, Environmental Politics, Brazilian Political Science Review and other Brazilian journals. She was awarded a scholarship from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and was selected for the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship (2019/2020). In 2020, she was a visiting scholar in the Institute for Media and Communication Studies at the University of Mannheim with Harmut Wessler as her external supervisor; she also worked under the supervision of Jürg Steiner in the University of Bern. Tariq  Choucair  was a doctorate student at the Federal University of Minas Gerais when this book was written, currently he  is Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Digital Media Research Centre, at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia. He has a PhD in Communication at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He is an associate researcher at the Media and Public Sphere Research Group (EME/UFMG). His research in online political discussions, deliberation and polarization, social conflict, disagreement and reciprocity. His work was published in Political Studies, Political Research Exchange, E-Compós and other Brazilian journals. He is one of the contributors of the book Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy (2022), edited by S. Ercan, H. Asenbaum, N. Curato, and R. F. Mendonça. In 2020, he was a visiting researcher at The Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra with Nicole Curato as external supervisor.

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Arenas and digital platforms. (Adapted from Neblo (2015)) Fig. 5.2 List of arguments Fig. 8.1 Arenas and Digital Platforms. (Adapted from Neblo, 2015)

73 74 150

xvii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 8.8 Table 8.9 Table 8.10 Table 8.11

Description of reason-giving functions Research sample Actor × arenas Actors position in each arena Main arguments by actors in each arena Argumentation types × arenas Positions of comments in online platforms Positions of claims in the base-arenas Arguments in each arena—public hearings Arguments in each arena—news Arguments in each arena—Facebook Types of reasoning in each arena Types of reasoning in pro side of debate Types of reasoning in con-side of debate Expression of emotions in each forum Side associated with each emotion Expression of emotions in each forum—Pro side Expression of emotions in each forum—Con side Content of pro-argumentation x Emotions Content of con-argumentation x Emotions Anger Fear Compassion Indignation Adolescents

61 79 80 81 87 89 111 112 114 115 115 117 120 121 153 155 156 156 157 157 158 158 158 159 160

xix

xx 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.12 Table 8.13 Table 8.14 Table 8.15 Table 8.16

Politicians Debate Opponents Main Features of the Legislative Settings Main Features of the Online Forums Inter-­Coder Reliability

160 160 168 168 169

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In short, deliberative politics is not, for me, a farfetched ideal against which sordid reality must be measured, but an existential presupposition of any democracy that still merits the name. —Habermas (2018, p. 872)

Why Focusing on Deliberative Politics in Dark Times? Arguably, we are now in a new phase of investigation into the foundations of deliberative politics and its functioning in the democratic world. In relation to basic values and commitments, we have witnessed a decline in citizens’ trust on democratic institutions; increased incivility among elected leaders and polarisation between political groups. Populist parties and authoritarian agendas and angry citizen mobilisations are gaining ground in Western Europe, North America and Australasia (Levine, 2018; Mudde, 2017; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Authoritarianism is increasing, with a clear setback of liberal procedures and democratic institutions in countries like Brazil, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela. The extent of the threats and the severity of the dangers vary between societies, combining historical developments and institutional arrangements. Different types of social conflicts are brought to the fore and elicit different responses from political representatives. Of course, all of these developments are very worrying for deliberative democracy—a model based on

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_1

1

2 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

theories that give a central place to communication between people to discuss matters of common interest that affect their lives. At the same time, digital media have created new conditions for public discussions, political representation and activism worldwide (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Bruns, 2019; Cammaerts, 2021; Leiding, 2021; Maia, 2018a; Papacharissi, 2015). Messaging and social media apps, now incorporated into the daily work of reflection, contestation and organisation, allow for direct communication between political representatives, traditional media organisations, civic associations and ordinary citizens (Bruns, 2019; Chadwick, 2017; Ekström & Shehata, 2018). Ironically, perhaps, in contrast to the era of mass communication, it became increasingly clear after 2016 that the potential of digital communication, once praised for expanding political participation and empowering excluded groups, also promotes authoritarian groups and raises illiberal voices that challenge the norms of democratic citizenship in the public sphere (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Maia, 2017; Tucker et al., 2017). This book advances interplay between deliberative theory and empirical analysis from a systemic perspective. So, a crucial initial question that motivates this book is: why focusing on deliberation at a time when democracy is seen to be under threat? In fact, polarised groups usually do not want to sit at the discussion table; authoritarian leaders do not wish to deliberate; and the mobilisation of resentful and angry citizens tends to present non-deliberative voices (Curato et al., 2019; Fishkin & Mansbridge, 2017; Levine, 2018). For some observers and scholars, this scenario, “spells the end of deliberative democracy” (Gunn, 2017, p.  114). The new round of studies is now concerned with “deliberation in dark times” (Curato et  al., 2019), “systemic democratic disconnections” (Hendriks et al., 2020), as well as broader threats represented by the “disinformation order” (Bennett & Livingston, 2018), “epistemic crisis” (Benkler et al., 2018; Chambers, 2020b; Dahlgren, 2016) “unedited” and “disrupted” public spheres (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018). To capture these dangers, a systemic approach is needed. Throughout this book we argue that the systemic approach, when well-conceived, is better equipped than studies restricted to individual or separate forums for dealing with the challenges that democratic societies face, such as political fragmentation, polarisation, lies, political ignorance. The distinguishing feature of our research is to develop an analytical framework to understand reason-giving in discussions taking place in a set of interrelated institutions and places; and map

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

how this process establishes connections and disconnections across different categories of actors, including ordinary citizens. In our current project we adopt a critical stance, aligned with thinkers who argue that the starting point for many normative debates on standards and conditions for deliberation makes significant contributions to understanding threats and deformities that now subvert the functioning of democracies; and undermine principles and expectations of behaviours in democratic societies (Chambers, 2020b; Bächtiger et al., 2018; Gutmann & Thompson, 2018; Habermas, 2018, 2022). The importance of normative premises of deliberative politics becomes clearer when democratic inclusion is violated, reciprocity and respect are undermined, the demands for publicity, transparency and sincerity (or accuracy) are negated in electoral democracies. Indeed, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School from the beginning has been concerned with authoritarianism, power politics and manipulation in order to provide important distinctions that help to define goals to be promoted or achieved in democratic societies. The perception that everyday discussions of ordinary people have been neglected in deliberation studies motivated our work. System thinking invites scholars to pay serious attention to institutions that have separate, but interdependent, functions (Schimitt-Beck & Grill, 2020; Chambers, 2017, 2020a; Curato et  al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Maia, 2012a, 2017; Mansbridge et al., 2012). A large number of citizens persist in the pursuit of democratic values and are strongly committed to advancing democratic practices. However, efforts to capture complex and often contradictory relationships among settings and among a group of actors are still rare (Hendriks et  al., 2020). In our research, we expand these efforts and develop an analytical framework for understanding and assessing reasongiving as a linkage process that transcends time and space. We unpack arguments, reasoning perspectives and emotional concerns so we can better understand broader processes that connect and disconnect elites’ and citizens’ political judgement within and across distinct arenas. We will present data on concrete reason-giving practices on a specific law reform in Brazil—a proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility—in legislatures, mainstream media, activist civic associations and citizen discussions on various digital platforms. This book also reflects our perception that there is much to learn about the interface between deliberation and media studies. Including analysis of mass media and digital communication is important for dealing with interactional complexities of elites’ and

4 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

citizens’ everyday reasoning, and reply to threats posed to deliberative politics more effectively. In the first part of this book, we explore, through Chap. 1 and Chap. 4, the intellectual debate and controversies about the systemic approach, problems of the public sphere and media communication in the digital landscape; and we also illustrate a number of challenges to operationalising systemic analysis. In the second part, throughout Chap. 5 and Chap. 8, we present empirical research and concrete demonstrations of analysis of arguments, reasoning perspectives and emotional concerns that link actors in different arenas. Next, we explain these theoretical and empirical-­ methodological moves, including a chapter plan in more detail.

Why Adopting a Systemic Approach? Following the philosophical debates on normative controversies of deliberative democracy and, successively, the empirical turn to create deliberative initiatives in politics and in different social domains alike, the systemic approach is considered the most advanced stage in this field (Bächtiger et al., 2018; Chambers, 2017, 2020a; Curato et al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Mansbridge et al., 2012). Rather than conceiving deliberation as a unitary process, advocators of this approach argue that deliberation can take place in a variety of arenas, that is, a matrix of formal institutions and informal places that have distinct functions within a political system (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Dryzek et al., 2019). As a practice that emerges in specific spaces and moments, deliberation is expected to reflect varying levels (or standards) of normativity (Steiner et  al., 2017; Maia et  al., 2020a; Goodin, 2018). In this phase of research, inquiries into articulation of constituent parts of the political system either to advance or block deliberative practices gained the upper hand (Boswell et al., 2016; Mendonça, 2016; Hendriks, 2016). While systemic thinking seems genuinely innovative, it also raises a number of theoretical questions and represents a challenge for operationalisation in empirical research (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Maia, 2018a; Mendonça, 2016; Niemeyer, 2012). For some, the systemic approach is problematic because normative requirements are not easily applicable to large-scale processes (Dryzek, 2017; Goodin, 2018; Owen & Smith, 2015). For others, this holistic attempt is excessively abstract that renders it unrealistic and untestable (Gunn, 2017;

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

Talisse, 2017, p. 117). Moreover, critics have objected that explanations based on a system-wide perspective can easily fall into “fallacious societal functionalism” (Gunn, 2017, p. 113), by assuming that apparent obstacles could (or even should) make a positive contribution at the system level. In contrast, other scholars, ourselves included, contend that a systemic approach has opened up new ways of thinking about the various linkages (connections or disconnections) of state-based decision-making processes and discussions in different places in society (Bächtiger et  al., 2018; Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Maia, 2018a; Mansbridge et al., 2012). In our view, the systemic approach is a result of ever-expanding borders in deliberative democracy studies, involving collaboration of scholars from distinct disciplines (Bächtiger et  al., 2018; Goodin, 2018; Maia & Choucair, 2022; Maia, 2023). Systemic thinking is complicated to be applied in empirical research. However, this approach does not offer crude and facile answers to current problems in democratic societies. Rather than a grandiose theoretical model of the social system in the style of Talcott Parsons (1954), we understand that the systemic approach is better understood as a holistic perspective based on the articulation of the micro and macro concerns of sociological thought (Alexander, 1988, 1995, 1998; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Plunner, 1996). Systemic thinking provides relevant conceptual guidelines for looking at communicative exchanges and deliberative practices, within and across different settings. Normative commitments should absolutely not be abandoned, neither in micro nor in macro level of analysis. The normative perspective is important not only to enable us to identify which virtues are present or absent in practical discussions or varying levels of normativity that emerge in distinct moments (Gastil, 1993; Maia et al. 2020a; Sprain & Black, 2017; Steiner et al., 2017). By retaining normative distinctions, one can bring to light fundamental differences between deliberative and nondeliberative practices and outcomes more generally. Rather than a readily and directly testable hypothesis, normative theory paves the terrain for raising numerous questions that should be investigated in empirical ways. Throughout this book, we contend that we should learn more about how deliberation relates to non-deliberative practices. In Chap. 2, we explore the renewed controversies about the boundaries of a system, and key conceptual innovations to understand epistemic division of labour within the political system and between categories of actors, and specificities of different arenas of discussion. We examine criticisms addressed systemic thinking

6 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

as well as some answers provided by scholars working in this field to the risk of extending the normative concept of deliberation in unacceptable ways. In Chap. 3, we extend theoretical discussion to the public sphere and include everyday discussions and media-based communication into the picture. We contend that media analysis and digital communication are essential to understanding complex dynamics of daily work of reflection and discussion, contestation and mobilisation. In Chap. 4, we present our conceptualisation of justification as a linking mechanism that connects the political judgement of speakers across time and space, and therefore offer us important analytical tools and measurement strategies to deal with such complexities. Along with the development of systemic thinking, understanding connections and disconnections across the political system became a theoretical puzzle and also an empirical challenge (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Dryzek et al., 2019). Different conceptualisations of linkage (“transmission”, “translation”, “connection”) and types of integration have been proposed (Boswell et al., 2016; Mendonça, 2016; Hendriks, 2016). In our research, we develop an analytical framework to understand justification as a binding process (the binding force of reasons with which one agrees with) in political judgement that transcends time and space (Habermas, 1996, 2017). Our analysis tracks justifications, reasoning perspectives and emotional concerns that unite and divide actors in a matrix of institutions and social places. Although offering reasons is a practice expressed in different ways in different situations and places, the substantive content of justification can be systematically compared. We understand that giving reason is normatively foundational; this is not a disembodied and emotionless practice. Here, we align ourselves with scholars who argue that emotion is an intrinsic component of political judgement and reasoning (Bandes, 2008, 2014, 2017; Bandes & Blumenthal, 2012; Bickford, 2011; Habermas, 1990, 1995; Hall, 2007; Krause, 2008; Maia & Hauber, 2019;  Neblo, 2020; Rehg, 1994; Thompson & Hoggett, 2012). In our research we develop a set of operational criteria for tracing reasoning processes and emotional concerns beyond formal and informal arenas, across elite actors and a large body of citizens.

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

Developing Systemic Analyses Deliberative democracy puts constructive and meaningful discussion at its heart; and the systemic approach calls for attention to be given to the complexity of institutions, group of actors and ordinary citizens involved in discussions of matters of common interest that affect their lives (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et  al., 2020; Schneiderhan & Khan, 2018). Rather than pursuing an ambitious effort to develop an all-­ encompassing analysis—which could mean, for example, including an exhaustive range of settings and extensive temporal data collection—we advocate that systemic thinking provides guidelines for advancing more modest empirical analysis. We will argue that systematic analysis should go beyond micro-analysis based on participant performances and interactive-­ situational relationships and tell something about the broader set of institutions and category of actors, that is, with reference to relationships that spread in space and time (Alexander, 1998; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Plunner, 1996). We do not mean to imply that these two levels of analysis are mutually exclusive. Often, micro and macro-analyses share some underlying concerns, including economic, political, legal and cultural orders and the idea of socially constructed rules and institutional arrangements, for example. Not all studies fit neatly into these categories. These levels of analysis are better thought of as two approaches, and scholars can move from the micro level to the macro level of analysis and vice versa. Part of our effort is to establish what is at stake in making these moves more clearly. Empirical researchers have demonstrated that a systemic analysis can be developed on different fronts, with different methods and types of materials (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Parkinson et al., 2020; Schneiderhan & Khan, 2018). This book builds upon the micro-­macro linkage, in dialogue with theorists and empirical scholars. It became widely accepted among proponents of systemic approach that observing discussions confined within deliberatively designed forums does not enable one to understand broader and interrelated discussion practices in society (Mansbridge & Fishkin, 2017; Chambers, 2020a). At the same time, it became notorious that the nature of settings and their goals significantly affects participants’ expectations of deliberative behaviour, and several factors—such as design, provision of information and incentives for discussion, moderation, timing, among others, impact the deliberative quality of

8 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

interactions (Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Owen & Smith, 2015; Maia, Cal et al., 2020; Maia, Hauber et al. 2020; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014). In our empirical research, we start with this basic understanding. Rather than confronting distinct, and sometimes incompatible, practices of discussion—such as in parliaments or decision-making forums, in experts or civic associations, in everyday conversation, and so on—we think it is fruitful to observe and assess varying dynamics of reason-giving in diverse locations. We conceive reason-giving in different settings as distinct dimensions of empirical reality, instead of compartmentalised fields of investigation. Rather than aggregating data from different parts of the political system, we advocate that systemic thinking offers the conceptual tools to develop an integrated analysis, in order to survey the complementary interactions between actors and practices embedded in distinct situations and contexts. We argue that paying special attention to real, substantive, reason-­ giving practices about an issue-specific controversy has the advantage of allowing empirical scholars to make focused comparisons within single arenas as well as controlled comparisons across arenas. This does not mean that we are expecting or searching for deliberation everywhere. When examining a specific forum or place, researchers can examine the operation of justification, and a large number of intervening factors and conditions. As already pointed out, proper deliberation, including justification, reciprocity, mutual respect, openness to inclusion, and so on, may or may not emerge, following varying standards of normativity in specific spaces and moments. In our study, we focused on the pool of reasons and reasoning perspectives mobilised by categories of speakers in different settings in order to correlate patterns of justification, discursive cooperation and contestation across space and time. While statistical methods were used in our analyses, the frequent reminder of statisticians is useful here: correlation does not mean causation. In our study, we undertook a concentrated effort to trace processes in order to understand what connects/disconnects these settings and alignment between actors, rather than just comparing parts. Moreover, we advocate that systemic analysis also needs historical explanation to make sense of findings and evidence in each point in the chain. In Chap. 5, we investigate reasons offered to support and criticise the law reform in elite-like arenas—legislative hearings, mainstream news media and social media administered by a network of civic entities. The provision of reasons is examined in two levels: in single forums, by taking

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

into account contextual and intervening variables; and as a broader justificatory dynamics, across a matrix of institutions and interrelated actors, embedded in distinct situations. Chapter 6 further complements the notion of “circulation” of reasons, integrating analysis of ordinary citizens’ justifications in relation to elite-like actors in different domains. For this, we examine online discussions of users plugged in the legislative e-forum transmitting the public hearings, readers’ comments on the selected news stories in news websites, and users’ comments on the activist Facebook Page. The overall analysis reveals disparities in political judgement within-forum and across-broader outside publics, and uncovers patterns of cooperative and conflictual communicative interactions among different categories of actors. Just as important as overlaps of reasons and continuities of compelling justifications in different settings are emotional attunements across groups in society. In a time of greater divisions and polarisation, it has become crucially important to understand emotional dynamics associated with public debates. To expand our research, we engaged in dialogue with philosophers and constructivist theorists of emotions to place stronger emphasis on emotional concerns. Having the concepts deliberative theory in the background, Chap. 7 argues that emotions are constitutive components of reasoning; and different types of emotions intersect with conditions, procedures and outcomes of discussions. By critically surveying the debate about emotions among deliberative scholars, we highlight the fundamental role of emotions in moral judgments and reason-giving practices. We explore the conceptual grounds to understand emotions articulated with social and cultural meanings. Chapter 8 unpacks the emotions along with claims to support or criticise the law reform. We seek to capture whether, and if so, how, anger, fear, indignation and compassion emerge in reasoned discussions. We aim at capturing variations of emotions in pro- and con-attitudes regarding the law reform at stake; and whether emotion expressions vary in distinct social contexts, in legislatures and citizen forums. We also look at the intentional object of the emotions in opposing debate sides—that is, to whom or to what a specific emotion is directed to. Rather than researching emotions as individuals’ internal experiences, our goal is to show, as clearly and concretely as possible, emotions expressed alongside reasoning as a collective process.

10 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

The Case Study Systemic thinking provides general insights and conceptual tools to unite fields that normally remain separate. As our research attempts to move beyond the individual case study towards theoretical and empirical accumulation, we believe it could raise relevant new questions on the research agenda. The context of our research on the controversial reform of the law—a proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil— reveals the functioning of institutions and conflicts that are different from the well-studied cases in the USA and Western Europe. Our analysis reveals fractures in the public sphere and disconnection between resentful and frustrated citizens and political elites, experts and progressive civil society organisations during the government led by the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, PT). This case study helps to understand the relational logic between fear of violence and adherence to authoritarian solutions. The proposed law reform in question, associated with public security, crime and deep social inequalities, is a suitable case for a systemic analysis. The perception of growing violence in Brazil is felt deeply by the population; and citizens are often affected by this issue. In addition, it explicitly or implicitly addresses the historical social conflicts in Brazil, as black, poor and underprivileged adolescents are the main target of this legal reform. The Children and Adolescents Statute (ECA)—established in 1990 and recognised as one of the most advanced statutes in this area in the world— stipulates that children are considered holders of rights and adolescents are still in the development phase. Criminal liability is currently set at age 18, and adolescents aged 12 to 17 who break the law must be subjected to socio-educational measures, ranging from community service to a maximum of three years in a socio-educational institution. When this study was carried out, there were four bills and eight proposed amendments under debate in the Brazilian Congress, with the Senate recommending lowering the age of criminal responsibility. The reduction proposal is widely supported by the population. Murder or rape cases committed by teenagers, while representing only 13% of crimes committed by teenagers, attract recurring cycles of media attention. In turn, the widespread mass media coverage and popular distress over episodic crimes spark debates in legislatures and push for the passage of this law reform. Brazil became known for innovations in participatory policies during the PT Labour government from 2003 to 2016. A well-known example is

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

participatory budgeting with an effective capacity to engage the poor and distribute public goods (Avritzer, 2009). However, various dilemmas in the networks of governance and progressive policies, and deficits in ensuring public safety, play an important role in directing public debates. A recent study indicates that the greater the fear of violence, the greater the adherence to authoritarian solutions in Brazil (FBSP, 2017). Far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who won Brazil’s 2018 presidential election, has based his campaign on tougher public security policies, attacks on the national human rights plan, and claims that progressive agendas lead to ineffective and dysfunctional institutional arrangements. During his election campaign, Bolsonaro highlighted that working to pass a law to lower the age of criminal responsibility was one of his government’s priorities. In retrospect, this book helps to illuminate the fractures of political judgement and the affective concerns that polarise the public sphere and the complexity of the processes that pushed authoritarian political leaders to the centre of governance in electoral democracies, generating a set of uncertainties for the functioning of deliberative politics.

CHAPTER 2

Normative Controversies: Challenges to Apply a Systemic Approach to Deliberation

The plea to expand the scale of analysis to explore interrelations between parts of the political system and deliberation, as a larger social dynamic, has been formulated over the past 15 years (Goodin, 2005, 2008; Habermas, 1996, 2006, 2009; Hendriks, 2006; Maia, 2012a; Mansbridge, 1999; Neblo, 2005; Thompson, 2008). The systemic approach became increasingly influential after publication of the book Deliberative System (2012) edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, that included contributions from several thinkers. This set of scholarly work explicitly shifts the emphasis to concerns on broader aspects of deliberative processes at a societal level, breaking the restricted view of deliberation within forums that predominated in the empirical turn. The systemic approach is seen as advancement in several frontiers. Instead of focusing on specific institution or place, systemic thinking seeks to explain distinct sorts of connections between a variety of arenas, institutions and actors that have separate, but interdependent, roles and functions within the political system (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Chambers, 2017, 2020a; Curato et  al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017). It invites empirical researchers to develop multi-dimensional analysis in order to capture complexities across set of places and class of actors, and varying standards of normativity that emerge in specific spaces and moments (Dryzek, 2017;

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_2

13

14 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Dryzek et al., 2019; Maia et al., 2017c; Maia et al., 2020a; Miola, 2012; Steiner et al., 2017). In such a debate, deliberative scholars are fully aware that they are confronted with difficult questions that require conceptual refinements and challenges to develop adequate methodological strategies for empirical measurements (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et  al., 2020; Parkinson et  al., 2020). One cannot transfer concepts and problems of research based on singular forums to the study of broader social dynamics (Dryzek, 2017; Goodin, 2018; Owen & Smith, 2015). More severe critics contend that the systemic perspective is too abstract and provides fallacious functionalist explanations by assuming that apparent obstacles or dysfunctions are seen as positive to achieve a better balance at the system level (Gunn, 2017; Talisse, 2017, p. 117). In this chapter, we seek to demonstrate that deliberative thinkers have introduced new ideas that open up refreshed perspectives to advance the research agenda. Rather than neglecting the seriousness of some obstacles to deliberation, a systemic thinking helps to explore current deficits in democratic societies, without regressing to facile answers. We argue that deliberative theoretical framework reveals continued relevance to deal with current threats to democracy (Chambers, 2020b; Curato et al., 2020; Dryzek et al., 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020); and there is nothing in the systemic approach that prevents scholars from investigating the spread of lies, lack of reciprocity and political fragmentation, absence of respect, intolerance and polarisation, for instance. A holistic approach is beneficial for helping scholars to produce critical diagnoses of contemporary democracy and learn more about how deliberation relates to non-deliberative practices. This chapter aims at clarifying the intellectual context of systemic-­ thinking development. In the subsequent chapters, we reconstruct specific controversies and theoretical debates to articulate conceptual tools, placing emphasis on empirical analysis. In surveying this debate in a condensed way, we assess the following major controversies: (a) the demand to advance the research agenda beyond discussions occurring in separate forums; (b) the linkage of micro- and macro social concerns; (c) the risk of stretching the concept of deliberation, by rendering it meaningless; (d) relationships between deliberative and non-deliberative practices and different parameters of measurement used in a systemic approach.

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

15

Deliberation Beyond Forums In the past two decades, deliberative scholars have focused attention on discussions in legislatures and, to a great extent, in mini-publics. There are good intellectual and practical reasons for that. Deliberative democracy requires participation of citizens in discussions to provide inputs or recommendations for decision-making political bodies. Rather than pursuing philosophical-normative debates in more abstract terms, scholars became, therefore, increasingly engaged in research and field experiments for knowing how to build places and methods to apply deliberative procedures and improve the quality of debates. A large number of initiatives with distinct designs and goals—such as deliberative polls, citizens’ juries, participatory budgeting, among others—were systematically carried out by scholars themselves, in order to generate empirically oriented accounts and directives for political practices (Fishkin, 1995, 2009, 2018; Gastil et al., 2008; Lacelle-Webster & Warren, 2021; Nabatchi et  al., 2012; Neblo et  al., 2018; Steiner et al., 2017; Setälä & Smith, 2018; Warren & Pearse, 2008). These efforts include methods and resources to enhance opportunities for participation; to motivate people to learn and express critical considerations as well as understand the opinions of others (Fishkin, 2009, 2018; Fung, 2003; Karpowitz et al., 2012; Lindell et al., 2017). Places are built and conditions offered to translate normative principles into practical experiences. Deliberative polls, designed by James Fishkin (2009) and applied in different regions of the world, have been praised for generating more informed and considered opinions. It is based on similar concerns that deliberation via digital forums developed rapidly in the last decade (Friess & Eilders, 2015; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2018; Wright & Street, 2007). Research involving deeply divided groups show that deliberation help to generate enlightened understanding and search for collaborative conflict resolution, and ameliorate mutual acknowledgment of other groups’ perspectives (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2014; Caluwaerts & Ugarriza, 2012; Luskin et al., 2014; Maia et al., 2017; Steiner et al., 2017). Research and initiatives to teach, learn and practice deliberation in schools are growing in different countries (Shaffer et al., 2017; Maia et al., 2023; Nishiyama, 2021). A considerable accomplishment of this large body of research has been to demonstrate the practical functioning of deliberation within forums. Let us reiterate that this is not a small achievement. We know now much more about factors affecting discursive engagement and meaningful participation, such as time, information provision, styles of moderation, forms of outcome

16 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

(such as preparing a report, answering questionnaires); efficacy of publicity type, among others (Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Fishkin, 2018; Gastil et al., 2018; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014). Scholars have developed strategies for compensating imbalances of status and power among forum members, recommending varying combinations of group size of participant categories and decision rules (Karpowitz et al., 2012; Lindell et al., 2017). However, this same achievement also exposes somewhat a weakness in this research programme. In seeking to understand a myriad of concrete factors of deliberative practices in specific contexts, empirical scholars have often lost sight of the “whole”. In this section, we argue that the demand to expand analysis beyond singular forums is, at least in part, a response to criticism that emerged in the deliberative field itself (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Curato et al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Mansbridge et al., 2012; Neblo, 2015). As the literature on citizens’ assemblies and mini-­publics developed, it also incorporated a series of inquiries posed by deliberative thinkers as well as by researchers working in adjacent areas. Overall, our argument here is that the systemic approach constitutes an advancement that incorporates concerns with broader publics and decision-­making in governance network. In this line, at least three sorts of criticism have been raised along these developments. First, scholars concerned with problems of legitimacy, authorisation and accountability, put forward questions about the risk of deliberation insulated in mini-publics, apart from broader publics, bypass political judgement of broader body of citizens (Chambers, 2009, 2012, 2017, 2018; Lafont, 2015; Neblo, 2015). At the heart of deliberative democracy lies the view that legitimacy is based on argumentative justification, under appropriate conditions of judgement, by those subject to it (Böker, 2017; Dryzek, 2010; Habermas, 1996). Simone Chambers (2009, 2012, 2017, 2018), for instance, has long warned that focusing on mini-­ publics should not mean giving up on mass democracy. Political decision-­ making on pressing issues and long-term reforms requires the support of a larger public (Böker, 2017; Boswell et  al., 2016; Lafont, 2015). Investigating how mini-publics improve democracy is important, but understanding broader publics’ judgments cannot be neglected. A second source of criticism addresses difficulties in extending the benefits of mini-public initiatives to non-participants. Mini-publics are often seen as antidotes to various evils in democratic societies, such as citizen apathy, low level of information or political trust and lack of sense of political effectiveness. Citizens assembly members go through an experience that their opinions cannot be considered representative of the general

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

17

public, as they are given the opportunity to learn, eventually watch expert debates, and engage in deliberation on fairly egalitarian terms that broader publics cannot replicate (Boswell et  al., 2016; Lafont, 2015; Setälä & Smith, 2018). Confronting these worries, deliberative scholars became ever more interested in “spreading effects” of mini-publics and “scaling up” deliberativeness (Gastil et  al., 2014; Niemeyer, 2014; Niemeyer & Jennstäl, 2018; Setälä & Smith, 2018; Warren & Gastil, 2015). John Dryzek has advocated that organisation of mini-publics could become a permanent feature of the arrangements of government, through institutionalisation or even “constitutionalization” of these initiatives (Boswell et al., 2016; Dryzek, 2017). In this line, Simon Niemeyer (2014) has stressed that mini-public participants may provide “distilled information” to help a larger body of people make good judgement on complex issues, with reduced cognitive effort. In his words, mini-publics could be used as a “ladder for increasing the deliberative nature of the overall system” (Niemeyer & Jennstäl, 2018, p. 339). From that standpoint, interactions with socially distant interlocutors are required. As Mark Warren and John Gastil (2015) have put it, forum members could operate as “facilitative trust agents”. Nicole Curato and Marit Böker (2016) speak of participants’ “discursive role” to advance perspectives, claims and recommendations generated by mini-public initiatives (see also Gastil et  al., 2014; Setälä & Smith, 2018). The engagement in more spontaneous discussions beyond the protected environment of mini-publics is likely to find more adversarial conditions, not deliberative practices and competition with views and discourses advanced by other actors (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Maia, 2018b). We will argue that communicative encounters cannot be conceived merely as “transmission of messages”, but complex interactions and pragmatic practices of making and receiving claims. A third important strand for demanding expansion of analysis beyond mini-public initiatives, which is closely related to the previous ones, points out complexities of the governance arrangements (Boswell & Corbett, 2018; Hendriks et  al., 2016, 2019, 2020). No doubt, deliberatively designed forums can produce several complementary democratic effects on governance. However, scholars should not give up on the pursuit of understanding if political elites control mini-public outcomes in other parts of the political system and various pressures that may isolate citizens’ recommendations in administrative decision-making processes (Quirk et  al., 2018). Citizen assemblies, for example, can be arranged by the

18 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

government as a mere formality to satisfy the public or the opposition; the discussion agenda may include only marginal topics; and the initiative itself might be used by powerful groups to obtain advantages in the political game (Elstub, 2014; Lafont, 2015, 2019; Neblo, 2015). To understand broader processes of decision-making, scholars became increasingly attentive to the working of mini-publics enmeshed in government arrangements, consisting of linked institutions, distinct interests and broader social relations (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 2018). Taken together these criticisms re-introduce the concern with the role of informal discussions and more spontaneous interactions on a wider scale; and complexities of political decision-making in the network of governance. Media-based communication also acquires new analytical relevance, insofar as deliberative scholars embrace the effort to find ways to interact with broader publics and exert influence on a larger group of people (Dryzek et  al., 2019; Fishkin, 2018; Gastil et  al., 2014; Lazer et al., 2015). The systemic thinking after 2016 was also impelled by worries with the rise of populist or illiberal leaders and groups, growing of popular discontent, intolerance and distrust on democratic institutions. Problems of circulating dysfunctional information and hate speech, harmful micro-targeting and algorithmic manipulation became central in the research agenda of deliberative scholars and media and political communication scholars alike (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018; Dahlgren, 2018; Maia, 2017; Miller & Vaccari, 2020; Pfetsch, 2018; van Aelst et al., 2017). In Chap. 3, we will further explore how this intellectual move brings back basic problems of the public sphere and variants of citizens’ cognitive and information deficits, lack of interest in understanding others’ opinions or engage in reasoned discussion in face of disagreements (Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996, 2018; Habermas, 1996, 1998). For now, it suffices to say that systemic thinking does not provide any specific remedy to the aforementioned challenges. However, it recommends critical investigation of complexities of discussions on matters of public interest in a number of places in government structures and places in society. It facilitates the exploration of various ways citizens acquire information and engage in discussions, and enables researchers to think through institutions and broader publics. When democracy is seen under threat, critically understanding the interplay of deliberative and non-­ deliberative practices seems badly needed.

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

19

The Systemic Approach: Linkage of Microand Macro Social Concerns One of the chief concerns of a systemic approach is with the interconnection of parts and complex interactive processes between institutions and actors (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Chambers, 2017, 2020a; Curato et  al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017;  Maia, 2012a, 2018b; Mansbridge et  al., 2012). Rather than investigating whether discussions in a given institution or forum meet the standards of deliberation or not, researchers now seek to articulate micro and macro concerns of deliberation. In this section, we develop in more detail our argument that the systemic approach helps one to move beyond earlier concerns in deliberative studies, by placing new questions in the research agenda. Rather than constituting an ambitious attempt to examine an all-inclusive system, systemic thinking, so we contend, invites scholars to pay serious attention to a set of interrelated institutions and set of interrelated actors, and practices that spread beyond specific situations and contexts. Earlier thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas (1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 2006, 2009), Dryzek (2000) and Mansbridge (1999), among others, set the stage for addressing the concept of deliberation as a broad process in society, not only in a political philosophical way, but also in a more sociological fashion. Recently, André Bächtiger et al. (2018, p. 2) conceptualised “deliberative democracy” as “any practice of democracy that gives deliberation a central place”. In this line, Mansbridge et al. (2012) and colleagues present the following concept of a system: A system here means a set of distinguishable, differentiated, but to some degree interdependent parts, often with distributed functions and a division of labour, connected in such a way as to form a complex whole. It requires both differentiation and integration among the parts. It requires some functional division of labour, so that some parts do work that others cannot do as well. And it requires some relational interdependence, so that a change in one component will bring about changes in some others. (Mansbridge et al., 2012, p. 4)

As indicated in the previous section, relevant developments have taken place in the last two decades that have allowed us to rethink the interplay between micro, forum-based analysis, and macro analysis level, that is, processes seen at a large space-time dynamics. When we use the term

20 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

“systemic approach”, we in no way mean to restore the grandiose Parsons-­ style model of social system theorising (Parsons, 1954). We build upon deliberative theorists’ accounts and the synthesis provided by the debate on the micro-macro linkage in sociology (Alexander, 1988, 1995, 1998; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Plunner, 1996). We consider, for instance, that the notions of “functions” and “goals” are relevant and still useful conceptual tools. However, this does not rest on a functionalist vision, based on assumptions of compatibility or harmony between the parts. We place, instead, a strong emphasis on inter-relational orders and actors’ performances. We understand that social movements and collective actions, as well as the combination of culture and history, are important explanatory arguments, and play a central role in our research. It is not our intent to provide a full summary accounting this theoretical movement, but just revisiting some specific concepts and implications that are important for systemic analysis of deliberation. The Notion of a Social Whole The systemic approach is based on the premise that the division of labour generates interactions between various parts (or subsystems), which have different goals in society, with a corresponding institutional arrangement and set of actors who play functionally defined roles. Current theorising defines the deliberative model of democracy as a broad and dynamic process, rather than a mere aggregation of its constituent parts. Often, the notion of “deliberative system” is applied in research dealing with social problems or policies on a national scale, but it can equally be applied to narrower or broader levels of analysis. In Chaps. 5 and 6, we will explore the idea of “epistemic division of labour” (Habermas, 1996; Bohman, 2000) in complex and ethically pluralist societies (see also, Brown, 2009, 2014; Dewey, 1927). Several assumptions behind systems thinking are related to macrosociology’s concerns about the functioning of society, or “a social whole”, and its dynamic reproduction and transformation. Instead of the generic concept of “society”, which poses traditional problems for defining clear boundaries,

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

21

we think that the term “social whole”1 is useful in referring to a set of institutional arrangements and interrelated participants. The notion of the “social whole” offers a sketch for dealing with this complexity, as it can be applied at local, national or transnational levels. One can adequately distinguish between the matrix of institutions and agents and the mechanisms at play; and adopt appropriate theories to explore the problems under scrutiny at local, national or transnational levels, in line with the research interests. A potential source of criticism—often directed towards functionalist analysis—is that the emphasis on a “whole”, conceptualised in terms of structures and actors, produces generic and disembodied explanations. This would mean, for instance, generalisations about participants that play interconnected, but not entirely overlapping, roles; or individuals, in certain institutions, performing roles that are functionally defined. The main objection here is that the macro approach neglects the agency of social participants, their reflexivity and agency. It provides a reductive picture of the individuals’ complexities, personal properties, desires, dispositions, resources and so on. These objections are usually grounded on interpretive sociological accounts, such symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and phenomenology. Micro sociology models, influenced by George Mead (1934), Harold Garfinkel (1967) or Erving Goffman (1959, 1983), for example, focus on interrelationships of participants in concrete spaces and situations. In our view, such criticisms rest on unnecessarily restrictive functionalist views of systems. In subsequent theorising, central attention was devoted to connections between macro and micro sociological concerns, taking these dimensions as complementary rather than dichotomies. The task to overcome this split can be found in Anthony Giddens’ (1984, 1987) theory of structural duality; Pierre Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) notions of social field and habitus; and David Lockwood’s (1964) vision of system integration and social integration. Habermas’ (1984, 1987) attempt to link system theory and the pragmatist conception of the lifeworld, and normative expansions in his theory of communicative action, also emerged in this intellectual context  For dealing with classical difficulties in sociological thinking for setting boundaries on social entities, here we adopt the term “a social whole” that may acquire transitional meanings, depending on the level of analysis (Hamilton, 1996; Mouzelis, 1995, 1996). In order to avoid the much-criticised individual-versus-the society dichotomy, Mouzelis (1995) argues that “a social whole does not completely overlap with the notion of society” (p. 100). In a structural institutional level, “whole” may refer to a local, national or transnational level (encompassing several countries) and corresponding set of interrelated institutions. In terms of participants, it may refer to the set of related agents, actors, groups or players interacting in a specific whole (Mouzelis, 1995, 1996; Hamilton, 1996). 1

22 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

in response to the aforementioned micro-macro division. This broad theoretical movement to overcome the macro-micro split cannot be minimally mapped here (Alexander, 1988, 1995, 1998; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Plunner, 1996). However, we seek to highlight that the systemic approach provides important guidelines for developing empirical research (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Maia & Choucair, 2022). Implications of Adopting a Systemic Approach We argued that central attention must be given to the links between institutional arrangements and a set of interrelated participants. Positional or functional roles should be seen as related to performances in interactive-­ situational contexts (Alexander, 1998; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Plunner, 1996). Below we summarise how we conceived three main orientations of the systemic approach to craft empirical studies. First, the systemic approach recommends that scholars retain the macro-micro linkage to build the research design; and to develop empirical operationalisation. In other words, when looking at macro-interactions (referring to the economic, political, legal spheres with their own set of institutions and operational logic), one should not neglect the agency of actors, roles and performances associated with their positions and dispositions. When looking at micro-interactions, one should consider that settings are shaped by specific institutional structures, differentiated objectives, and a number of formal and socially constructed rules. Thus, examining certain actors in a specific space and time, participant-social-­ whole issues remain in the background of analysis. In our research, we are interested in investigating specific processes of discussion about a law reform proposal. We start with the view of the governance network, fields of action, domains of civic association, places of everyday conversation, and so on. In this perspective, special analytical attention is given to the interdependence of actors when dealing with problems of common interest, coordination and disjunctions of related actions. A second contribution of systemic thinking is to make us more aware of how participants dynamically relate with institutions and other categories of actors, in terms of cooperative or conflicting relationships. Unlike static models, considering the situational logic of interactions and contextual factors means surveying ways in which speakers orient themselves in specific places, in ongoing social relationships. For example, politicians shape their performance differently when they argue in legislatures, in plenary sessions, or behind closed doors; when providing information to the mass

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

23

media; or by interacting with followers through online social networks. When moving from one setting to another, systemic analysis is beneficial for looking at complex relationships. Rather than taking roles and attitudes for granted, how people shape their performances and engage in dynamic interactions are questions to ask. People’s real interests and anxieties gain importance in concrete societies and historical contexts. A third implication is that systemic thinking allows us to pay more attention to culture and social hierarchies, that is, conditions under which differently positioned actors operate within a social whole. Actors and social groups are necessarily embedded in institutional orders and in the moral grammar of society that unequally distribute power, status, resources, and so on (Alexander, 1998; Hendriks et  al., 2020;  Honneth, 1996, 2007;  Maia, 2014; Maia & Cal, 2014; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995; Schneiderhan & Khan, 2018). To illustrate, members of civic associations or activist movements from disadvantaged groups tend to engage in deliberative discussions at internal group meetings; make much more assertive demands when speaking publicly and engaging in contentious expressions in collective mobilisations (Arantes, 2017; Maia et al., 2017). Cooperative or contentious interactions, involvement in deliberative discussions, or strategic behaviours are closely related to varying degrees of power among participants at the top/bottom of social hierarchies. When one shifts the focus from different situations and relationships in which people are inserted, cultural and historical analysis becomes increasingly relevant to explain discursive engagement and related actions at a broader societal level. Systemic thinking provides the basis for developing different research designs, with different aims and empirical material (Parkinson et al., 2020; Hendriks et  al., 2020; Maia & Choucair, 2022;  Schneiderhan & Khan, 2018). Depending on the research interest, one can move from micro to macro concerns and vice versa. In any case, a systemic approach should prioritise relations in different arenas and set of actors involved, and processes of communication that transcends boundaries of singular places. Bächtiger and Parkinson (2019) recommend using different strategies and combinations of methods to map and assess deliberation. They suggest that “deliberation will not show up as a fixed and unitary construct” (2019, pp.  73–74). We fully agree that this systemic perspective is not meant to produce a fully cohesive picture through which public debates in social realities or orders are constructed. Instead of rhetorical formulations or methodological blueprints, the systemic approach helps researchers to pay more attention to the complexities of interactions at various levels and, at the same time, better interpret historical and cultural contexts.

24 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

The Risk of Stretching the Concept of Deliberation Deliberation can take place in a variety of settings, including a matrix of institutions and informal places. Different conditions for discussion provide opportunities and constraints that can either favour or undermine discursive engagement. Several thinkers have correctly warned against the risk of stretching the concept of deliberation too much, in unacceptable ways, when pursuing broader analysis of deliberation (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Goodin, 2018; Owen & Smith, 2015). Parkinson has contended that “If everything is deliberation, then deliberation means nothing anymore, and contributes nothing to our understanding of democracy: deliberation risks becoming ‘directionless, or worse, broad communicative system’ (Bächtiger et  al., 2010: 48)” (Parkinson, 2012, p. 154). In the same vein, Owen and Smith (2015) have argued that system theory seems to conceive everything as deliberative to the point that the term means nothing. We fully agree that deliberation is a distinct mode of communication and interaction, and scholars should resolutely not abandon normative commitments when observing and analysing communicative exchanges. As a regulative ideal, deliberation, as posited by classic theorists (Cohen, 1997; Habermas, 1996, pp. 305–306), can be identified in interactions when participants provide explanation for their preferences and reflexive considerations for their demands; relate reciprocally to each other’s considerations or express justifications in un-coerced ways; treat one another with mutual respect, by acknowledging interlocutor partners as free and autonomous persons; are open to include other participants, topics, views or perspectives into discussion; are open to changing preferences based on critical considerations or justifications and the possibility of reversing outcomes should be present. Recently, Robert Goodin (2018, p. 893) has lucidly argued that conceptual stretches are usually generated by efforts to make deliberative theory more democratic and inclusive; as well as more deliberative and more realistic. He indicates three areas of conceptual stretching related to: (a) the type of communication necessary for deliberation beyond reason-­ giving, such as personal stories and rhetoric; (b) the ways of conceiving reasoned-motivated agreement and consensus; (c) the view of mutual respect (p. 893). We do not seek even touching the surface of controversies here—an extensive normative debate that occupied scholars over the past two decades  (Bächtiger et  al., 2018; Dryzek, 2000;  Maia, 2012a;

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

25

Steiner, 2012). Small portions of this debate, in particular reason-giving dynamics and emotions, will be surveyed in subsequent chapters of this book along our empirical investigations from a systemic perspective. Insofar as deliberation is a normative-oriented theoretical framework, our point here is that one cannot abandon core normative principles when developing empirical research, neither at micro nor at macro-level. Once central deliberative principles are ignored, the analysis can jump to all forms of easy or reductionist explanations. That said, we advocate that scholars should also not give up efforts to explain democratic deliberation in a more holistic manner either. As long as principle-based distinctions are maintained, the interplay between deliberation and different forms of communication can be included in the research project; and scholars can track behaviours that can either contribute or disrupt discursive engagement in a practical way (Maia et al., 2017a, 2020a; Steiner et al., 2017). By retaining normative distinctions, one can bring to light fundamental differences, for instance, between reciprocal, horizontally built interactions in contrast to hierarchical ones; cooperative effort of persuasion and continued commitment to keep the terrain of discussion open in contrast to unilateral and power-based interactions; subtle retreat from discursive engagement and patterned disruptive behaviours (Steiner et  al., 2017; Maia et al., 2020a), and so on. In summary, maintaining the normative principles is crucial for making fundamental distinctions in empirical research, re-working and clarifying a small number of concepts and dealing with complexities emerging in communicative practices. We understand that references to normative ideals should be specified taking into account the nature of question under scrutiny, rather than being straightforwardly defined. Thus, we believe that different research designs can be built in ways that are congruent with the deliberative theory and its underlying normative principles. In this book, instead of taking any theoretical position on the minimum normative requirements that must accompany the macro level of empirical research, we argue that the operationalisation criteria vary according to the research interests. Describing acceptable and unacceptable forms of stretching—or “how much stretching is ‘too much’”, to use Goodin’s words (2018, p. 889), depends, to a large extent, on what researchers actually do with their conceptual tools, develop methodological strategies for measurement and build explanations. In a deliberative spirit, all these definitions and operations are of course open to criticism and refutation by other scholarly works.

26 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Relations Between Deliberative and Non-deliberative Practices For an analysis to be called “systemic”, in our view, one does not need to embrace an exhaustive number of settings, and cover a multitude of issues simultaneously. Let us reiterate that we understand the systemic approach as a holistic perspective that invites scholars to develop analysis of interactions between parts of a system or among various actors or groups engaged in controversial debates on matters of common concern. We believe that systemic thinking is relevant for providing guidelines for more modest investigation of specific problems. When looking at a given phenomenon, either through a macro or a micro lens, or via an explicit combination of both, a systemic analysis must be able to tell something about complex interactions in a larger social whole. We contend that a systemic approach might be fruitfully applied to a wide range of questions. In this book, we highlight that empirical researchers can observe cases of good as well as bad deliberative performances, interplay of democratic and no-democratic practices, and trade-offs in their outcomes. When adopting a systemic approach, we claim, one should retain normative premises in the background of inquiries. Therefore, conceptual tools should be informed by normative principles regarding supra-­ empirical conditions and interpretation of phenomena seen from a holistic approach. The normative ideals, while crucial for building the overall theoretical framework, pose several difficult questions for empirical operationalisation in research following a systemic approach. According to Mansbridge et al. (2012), three key requirements—epistemic, ethical, democratic—should be observed in deliberative systems. Epistemic function is expected “to produce preferences, opinions, and decisions that are appropriately informed by facts and logic and are the outcome of substantive and meaningful consideration of relevant reasons” (p.  11). Ethical function is expected to “promote mutual respect among citizens” (p. 11) in order to sustain deliberation as an ongoing practice. Finally, in order to guarantee the equality-based status of citizens and legitimacy of deliberation, democratic function is expected to secure “The inclusion of multiple and plural voices, interests, concerns, and claims” (p. 12). Arguably, the attempt to translate political-philosophical theorising into an all-encompassing synthesis to be applied in empirical analysis is an untenable enterprise.

2  NORMATIVE CONTROVERSIES: CHALLENGES TO APPLY A SYSTEMIC… 

27

Evaluating whether normative elements are or not present at a system level is a quite abstract and elusive question (Dryzek, 2017; Elstub, 2010; Gutmann & Thompson, 2018; Thompson, 2008, p. 514). Ideal requirements of deliberation become vaguer as one moves from micro to macro analysis. How can one assess broader outcomes produced by deliberative and non-deliberative practices? How can we be sure that outcomes contribute satisfactory to democratic political systems as a whole? These formulations have far-reaching implications. Here, we concur with Dryzek’s (2017) argument that no metrics seem available nowadays to deal with such complexities, at this large scale and high level of abstraction. One of the central arguments developed in this book is that systemic thinking is useful for advancing empirical research, by allowing researchers to raise innovative questions on specific problem areas. When adopting a systemic standpoint, it is perfectly possible to track specific connections/ disconnections between communications produced in select settings, elucidate conditions that either enhance or spoil discursive engagement across places or actor categories and track factors that work to facilitate or block inclusion and plurality of viewpoints more broadly in the political system. One can also unravel practical mechanisms that favours or undermine attentive listening and mutual respect in a chain of distinct locales, in order to explore broader patterns of disrespect as a collective process in a given social whole. We present data about reason-giving on a law reform to reveal binding mechanisms of justification across a set of settings, showing common patterns of reasoning and emotional concerns along lines of adversarial positions that stretch widely across actor categories and discussion contexts. We map repertoire of reasons and justifications that circulate in distinct discursive contexts. In brief, our point here is that systemic thinking does not determine any specific topic to be surveyed, but provides guidelines about how to look at the topic under investigation. To be sure, one cannot transfer, without proper reconceptualization, rationale and measurement techniques used in micro analyses, that is, in a single forum-based discussion for example, to a macro level of analysis. Detailed description and explanation of variables are also needed in a systemic investigation. To look at broader processes and linkages within the political system, researchers may sometimes need to re-work conceptual tools for moving from micro- to macro concerns and vice versa. We believe that empirical analysis cannot advance well by neglecting normative questions. In this sense, we understand that constantly surveying theoretical

28 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

debates helps empirical scholars to gain insights for making important distinctions, refine conceptual tools, and build methodological strategies. We agree that normative assessment becomes more problematic as we move from micro to macro analysis, since normative requirements may conflict with each other, and generate trade-offs (Mansbridge et al., 2012). In face of these difficulties, we assume that empirical researchers can build on small pieces of evidence to cast some light on interrelation of institutions, actors and discursive processes. Keeping an eye on participants’ relational context and the other on social structures and historical conditions seems a promising path for addressing the complexity of these issues in practical ways. In our view, the systemic turn is accompanied by a renewed concern with social and historical contexts, within which social conflicts, moral disagreement and collective discussions gain significance. We believe that broader sociological and historical arguments underpinning context-sensitive analysis by no means offer definitive answers or solve difficulties for defining parameters and metrics to track evidence in each level of analysis. These sorts of arguments help us to offer plausible explanations, but they cannot be reduced to linear measures. We believe that tentative conceptualizations and multiple levels of analysis can work cooperatively with normative theory of deliberation. Adopting a systemic thinking, so we claim, one is better equipped to articulate a piecemeal of empirical results within a larger set of questions in a social whole. In this line, the systemic approach may generate more meaningful explanations for democratic continuities and ruptures in times of uncertainty.

CHAPTER 3

Bringing the Public Sphere and the Media Back to the Systemic Approach

This chapter deals with renewed concerns with the public sphere alongside the emergence of the systemic approach: the importance of thinking about everyday discussions beyond single forums. The crucial question is no longer contrasting different and incompatible types of discussion and deliberation—such as debates in parliaments and decision-making forums, everyday conversations, and online political discussions. Systemic thinking invites us to observe communicative interactions that follow varied dynamics and to assess eventual deliberation in different locations. Instead of compartmentalised fields of investigation, these practices are conceived as distinct dimensions of empirical reality. Thus, previous theoretical debates about the public sphere found their way back to current theorising about the deliberative system. To further substantiate this claim, we argue that the growing analytical interest in unstructured discussions in the public sphere and mediabased communication stems from two complementary intellectual movements. First, advances in theoretical and empirical research toward a systemic approach have long recognised that observing discussions confined in deliberately designed forums is not enough for understanding broader and interrelated discussion practices in society. Second, from a holistic point of view, the interconnected media environment cannot be underestimated. As digital media produces widespread effects, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_3

29

30 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

understanding and assessing circulation of information and multiple processes of communication is needed. Simultaneously, threats posed by mis- and disinformation, populist backlash or authoritarian attacks and big data collection has become central to studies on democracy (Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Miller & Vaccari, 2020; Splichal, 2022a, 2022b; Tucker et al., 2017). One of the main arguments presented in this chapter is that the public spheres are not “abstract spaces” as the image that emerges in earlier writings of deliberative thinkers might suggest. Informal settings and everyday discussions must be researched with equal analytical attention and meticulous measurement as in legislatures and deliberately designed forums. Serious attention must be paid to the nature of the settings, communication resources and types of interactions at play. In this sense, the systemic approach advances efforts to unite fields of knowledge, requiring the collaboration of scholars in disciplines that normally remain separate.

The Messy Public Sphere Deliberative theory places central emphasis on communication between people to discuss issues of common interest that affect their lives. Simone Chambers’ (2003) famous definition of a “talk-centric” model, coined over 20 years ago, captures well the relevance of communicative processes in deliberative theories, in contrast to vote and preference aggregation models. In some ways, of course, this distinction implies a “more or less” focus on discussion dynamics rather than an “either”/“or” alternative to the voting dynamics. After the systemic turn, it became easier to understand that the unstructured and spontaneous discussions that take place in multiple informal places, planned deliberations in forums and voting in periodic elections are not opposing (or disconnected) processes, but part of a continuum of political practices (Chambers, 2020a; Habermas, 2022; Maia, 2017; Mansbridge & Macedo, 2019; Urbinati, 2019; Warren, 2016). Critical awareness of the importance of the public sphere for democratic life seems indispensable nowadays. Democracies work well when representatives consistently respond to people’s concerns and interests. A new round of research has shifted the emphasis to citizens’ frustration with the mechanisms of political representation, manipulation, lies and disinformation. Populist leaders generally support distrust and disillusionment with liberal mechanisms, based on narratives that selfish politicians harm the interests of citizens (Carson et  al., 2018; Chambers, 2020b;

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

31

Curato et  al., 2020; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). In the words of Jane Mansbridge and James Fishkin (2017), the chasm created between “widely distrustful” political elites and “disillusioned citizens” has paved the way for populism that is fuelled “with the energy of angry voices” (Fishkin & Mansbridge, 2017, p. 7). In Jürgen Habermas’ (2018) view, “the infrastructures of public communication disintegrate to such an extent that dulling resentment, instead of well-informed public opinions, gains the upper hand” (Habermas, 2018, p. 872). The rise of radical, intolerant groups and attacks on individual rights, pluralist diversity and minority dissent destabilise democratic culture from within. This process can evolve into deadly challenges to democratic arrangements (Cammaerts & Mansell, 2020; Trenz et  al., 2021). As John Ferejohn (2018) has argued, people beyond elections retain “constituent power”, that is, “the power to alter or abolish the whole regime and not merely the government” (2018, p. 426). In non-­ democratic societies, authoritarians maintain power through repression, co-optation or coercive assurance of their right to rule, intimidation or threats; and the use of force is an ever-present possibility (Castiglione & Pollak, 2019; Neblo & Wallace, 2021). Once political representatives become unresponsive and systematically neglect people’s problems and concerns, high popular discontent is somehow translated into distrust, cynicism, and disruptions in the functioning of democracy (Chambers, 2020b; Dryzek et  al., 2019; Hendriks et  al., 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Urbinati, 2019; Mansbridge, 2020). In contrast to authoritarian regimes, citizens in democratic societies are in a position to constantly criticise political decisions, contest the malfunctioning of institutions, the objectives being pursued and the policies advanced in administrative bodies. With this link between representation and the formation of  political preference in mind, we can return to the conception of the public sphere. For a legitimate democratic government, the public sphere must function as: (a) an inclusive space for different voices; (b) the collective space of discursive formation of preference; (c) the space for collective action to define and prioritise political agendas (Habermas, 1991, 1996; Warren, 2016, p. 30). Slavko Splichal (2022a, p. 212) considers six components— Visibility, Access, Reflexivity, Mediation, Influence and Legitimacy (VARMIL)—“as indispensable for any democratic governance, whether considered the constitutive elements of the public sphere and publicness or independently of them”. Splichal highlights that each pillar includes a

32 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

large number of variables to be operationalised in empirical research. To explain historical changes and assess democratic institutional arrangements and public culture that enable and support citizen agency, broader analytical perspectives are needed. It is in this light that the understanding of the concept of the public sphere seems particularly productive, as discussed in more details below. The Concept of Public Sphere In Habermas’ earlier writings, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1991 [1962]), the public sphere is conceptualised as a discursive space of free and non-coercive discussion, based on egalitarian participation, as an instance of mediation between the State and society. The key idea is that the political legitimacy of decision-making on issues of common interest is achieved through reasoned discussion and mutual justification, which involves the practice of public communication among citizens. Such mediation process requires the inclusion of different voices and distinct political perspectives of people—that is, the public of citizens who share an egalitarian political status (Habermas, 1992). This dynamic of loose discussions is expected to capture citizens’ own concerns, including vigilance over how representatives exercise their power, and whether political decisions follow meaningful choices. It also requires venues or infrastructure for public discussion, that is, places and some sort of media-based communication. In Habermas’ earlier writings (1991 [1962]), the press is conceived as an important component for the circulation of ideas supporting public discussions. The prospect is that reflection may transcend direct and simple interactions in physical spaces, serving as a mechanism by which people separated in time and space can participate in critical public discussions. The concept of public sphere offered in The Structural Transformation, while remaining highly influential, has often been criticised on different fronts (Calhoun, 1992; Fraser, 1992; Negt & Kluge, 1993). Criticisms mainly refer to scant empirical references and underdeveloped historical accounts. For example, the bourgeois public sphere portrait is criticised for neglecting distinct constructions of the national state and public life in specific societies (Calhoun, 1992; Eley, 1992; Schudson, 1992). Feminist critics protest against the elitist and exclusionary character of Habermas’ conceptualisation of the public of citizens, by disregarding women’s

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

33

organisations and movements that were fundamental to transforming the political agenda and the social order in the late nineteenth century (Aronowitz, 1993; Fraser, 1992; Negt & Kluge, 1993). Furthermore, scholars argue that Habermas’ work underestimates the democratising function of education and the expansion of suffrage, and downplays the role of various social movements that struggled for greater social inclusion and contested differences defined in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion, and so on (Asen & Brouwer, 2001; Dahlgren, 2002; Fraser, 1992). Communication scholars show that Habermas develops a reductionist view of mass communication and neglects the potential of alternative forms of media to generate critical reflection and expand the participation of different groups in society (Dahlgren & Sparks, 1993; Downing, 2001; Garnham, 1995; Hallin, 1994). Despite the aforementioned criticisms—doubts about the utopian nature or inaccuracy of historical accounts—we cannot discount the fact that the public sphere concept has restored the critical potential of the wider body of citizens. Criticisms have been developed frequently in the Western world over the past 60 years, where democratic institutions and democratic expectations have often taken a backseat (Castiglione & Pollak, 2019; Dryzek et al., 2019; Levine, 2018; Mansbridge & Macedo, 2019; Urbinati, 2019). When dealing with authoritarian regimes, scholars often imagine authentic discussion practices to escape manipulative propaganda and intimidation; and the opening of constructive communicative spaces is recommended for new transition arrangements and democratisation processes (Dryzek, 2009: Neblo & Wallace, 2021). Rather than actualities, the normative potential of the public sphere concept—a discursive space for free and non-coercive public discussion, based on the egalitarian political status of members and effective participation—provides a counterfactual parameter or a starting point for critical reflection of individuals’ perceived problems, to thematize deficits in inclusion or participation, to expand restricted visions of equality or equity (Chambers, 2020a; Habermas, 1996; Thompson, 2008). Recently, Habermas (2022) refers to this potential as an “idealizing surplus” (p.  148). These democratic expectations are necessary to identify and advance criticism on obstacles for inclusion of the less educated and less affluent; on deficient or narrow conceptions of equality in the face of inferiority in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion or discrimination associated with other minorities; and on deficits in resources and capacity for substantive participation. These projected possibilities, once articulated in

34 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

claims that challenge actually existing social order and oppressions, embedded in social institutions and norms, are often disputed in ongoing struggles between real social groups (Deranty, 2009; Honneth, 1996, 2002; Maia & Vimieiro, 2013; Maia, 2014). Unstructured discussions that unfold relatively spontaneously among citizens do not produce binding policy decisions, but are crucial to raising people’s concerns, articulating claims on matters of collective interest, and demanding accountability. A number of scholars (Asen & Brouwer, 2001; Fraser, 1992; Parkinson, 2009), while acknowledging the importance of the public sphere concept, criticise the unitary account depicted in The Structural Transformation. For example, John Parkinson (2009) contends that it is as if “all citizens are part of a single public sphere which has at its apex a single set of formal institutions” (p.  4). Particularly after the expansion of the Internet and massive adoption of mobile media, dissatisfaction with any conception of centralised space of communication becomes evident; and the variety of mediation of public communication needs careful reflection. For example, Axel Bruns (2018) speaks in terms of “far more complex space of information flows” (p.  321), encompassing “individual publics operating under their own rules and conditions” (p.  322). Evan Stewart and Douglas Hartmann (2020) calls for a more complex conceptualisation of “new professional mediation in movement organizing, and new hybrid mediation of elite institutions” (Stewart & Hartmann, 2020, p. 10). The ambiguities regarding the concept of ‘public’– in terms of ‘publicness’ as the characteristic of what is visible in contrast to secrecy, public as a collectivity of people, and public spaces in opposition to private domains in territorial terms—have influenced different accounts and authors who have positively or negatively developed these ideas (Asen, 2003; Calhoun, 1992; Fraser, 1992). Splichal (2022a) usefully tracks varying understandings of these terms in distinct languages, in existing translations of The Structural Transformation into English and French; and subsequent developments in different directions. For our purposes, it is essential to maintain the normative dimension of the public sphere conceptualised as a modality of communicative interaction referring to behaviours or attitudes that arise between interlocutors— that is, provision of justification, non-coercive, horizontal, reciprocal and respectful interactions—procedures that Habermas clarifies in the Theory of Communicative Action and the Ethics of Discourse. It is important, at the same time, to pay attention to the infrastructure of communicative practices, including spaces (places, arenas, forums, etc.) and conditions (degrees of visibility or secrecy) of communication.

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

35

Later Developments on the Concept Many scholars, commenting on Habermas’ theory of the public sphere, focus on The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; and tend to offer a static view, ignoring how it has evolved over the decades. The conceptualisation of the public sphere shifts from a bipolar definition of mediation (between the state and citizens in the civil society) to multilevel mediation (the state, citizens and functional subsystems). In The Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas (1984, 1987) injected higher levels of abstraction in his writings, by articulating a sociologically oriented account of society based on theory of the social systems. He also reconstructed the concept of the lifeworld in line with pragmatic models of social interactions grounded on cultural and historical explanations. In a previous work (Maia, 2012a, pp. 60–66), we have already examined how these theoretical moves evoke relations among a set of actors and interrelated institutions from a holistic perspective. In Between Facts and Norms (1996, p.  373) and other essays (2006, 2009), Habermas adopts this decentralised view of society, grounded on previous works, to further advance his model of circulation of political power. Multilevel mediation is seen between the political system (with legislative, judiciary and executive institutional arrangements) and body of citizens (in private sectors of the lifeworld and civic associations) on the one hand, and distinct functional subsystems, with their own set of institutions, agents and chain of expertise, on the other hand (Habermas, 1996, p. 355). In other words, discussions in the public sphere come from citizens’ interpretation of needs across different policy areas, matters of collective identity and conflictual relations with other social groups. In this  recent theorizing,  civic organisations and social movements play an important role to translate dispersed concerns into matters of public interest and exert public influence or pressure on parliamentary discussions. Experts associated with different subsystems provide diagnosis and insights for complex problem resolution. To further elaborate the conception of deliberative politics, Habermas uses the metaphor of an intricate web of political discussions occurring outside state bodies, administrative and legislative institutions, including expert forums and a multiplicity of civic associations, pressure groups, the media arena and ordinary citizens (Habermas, 1996, p.  373, see also

36 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Habermas, 2006, p. 413; 2009, p. 147).1 In spatial terms (Maia, 2012a, pp. 60–66), the revised concept of the reticular public sphere “represents a highly complex network that branches out into a multitude of overlapping international, national, regional, local and subcultural areas” (1996, p. 373). This approach updates the role of the pluralistic public, at different scales of the ‘social whole’ in geopolitical arrangements and transnational institutions that are expected to deal with complex common problems and threats that transcend national borders. Another important model of public discussion supporting political decision-making is developed by John Dryzek (1990) notion of discursive democracy. Assuming that the communicative exchange between individuals allows the potential identification of common concerns and, thus, the formation of collective preferences in relation to chosen policies, Dryzek distinguishes between “public spaces” and “empowered spaces” (2012). Although the notion of public spaces is closely related to the Habermasian concept of the public sphere, empowered spaces should not be seen as restricted to parliaments. Dryzek suggests that empowered spaces include any decision-making body that makes consequential decisions, with impacts at various levels, such as “a legislature, a policy-making council in a corporatist state with representatives from government, business, and labor union federations, a cabinet, a constitutional court, an empowered stakeholder dialogue, an international organization, or a set of international negotiations” (2012, p. 11). According to Dryzek, both “public spaces” and “empowered spaces” must generate or facilitate the connection between them. The formation of public opinion in public spaces is necessary to express concerns and articulate demands that must be transmitted, through various mechanisms, to empowered spaces. The latter must respond to the problems and interests of citizens and be held accountable in public spaces (Dryzek, 2012). In an integrative approach, the development of deliberative 1  In Habermas’ words, “Political communication, circulating from the bottom up and the top down throughout a multilevel system (from everyday talk in civil society, through public discourse and mediated communication in weak publics, to the institutionalized discourses at the center of the political system), takes on quite different forms in different arenas” (Habermas, 2006, p. 415). In the expanded version of this article, Habermas explains that political communication circulates among three levels: (a) the level of “institutionalized discourse” at the centre of the political system, (b) the level of “media-based mass communication,” and (c) the level of “everyday political communication in civil society” (Habermas, 2009, p. 159).

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

37

capacities should be encouraged within and outside government, both by constitutions and informal practices (Dryzek, 2009). Deliberative empowerment, however, can be developed through international organisations and in non-democratic political systems (Dryzek, 2009; Curato & Böker, 2016; Milewicz & Goodin, 2016).

Re-thinking the Public Sphere, the Media and the Mediation Dynamics In the contemporary literature of deliberation, efforts to better understand the political concerns and judgments of wider publics in different contexts seem decisive. If the systemic approach intended to break with the understanding of deliberation as restricted to mini-publics, this endeavour is not entirely new for early theories of democratic deliberation. On the contrary, in the work of classical deliberation theorists there is a clear attempt to provide conceptual tools for understanding reason-­ exchange as a collective process. Habermas (1996, p. 136) evokes the idea of expanded argumentation, as subjectless reasoning, as cross-border claims that circulate in everyday discussions in multiple environments, the media, civic forums and legislative bodies. Seyla Benhabib (1996) refers to an “anonymous public conversation” that results from “loosely associated, multiple foci of opinion formation and dissemination which affect one another in free and spontaneous processes of communication” (p.  74). Citizens’ critical opinions result from “the interlocking net of these multiple forms of association, networks, and organization … of deliberation, contestation and argumentation” (pp. 73–74). For James Bohman (1996), “public deliberation is structured in such a way that each of a plurality of distinct actors cooperates by responding to and influencing the others” (p. 55). Finally, Dryzek (2000, p. 55) thinks in terms of contestation of discourses in the public sphere. Discourses can be mobilised by actors of different natures, anywhere and at any time. “Public opinion is then defined as the provisional outcome of the contestation of discourses as transmitted to the state or other public authority” (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2008, p. 484). These formulations provide a good indication of where we started to design our research. The media has always played an important role in theories dealing with the public sphere, the formation of preferences and public opinion, much

38 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

before the advent of the Internet and digitisation of communication (Maia, 2012a; Peters et al., 2008; Splichal, 2022a; Rinke, 2015; Wessler, 2008, 2018). In the digital scenario, we are faced with a complex set of media and multi-communication platforms, each with its own operating logic. Communication models in the mass media era focused typically on organisations, conditions and methods used by media professionals to structure public communication. In the digital environment, the mainstream media is just one venue for information provision among others, as elected representatives, economic agents, interest groups, civic associations, experts and celebrities establish direct, bi-directional and multidirectional communication with ordinary citizens (Bennett et  al., 2018; Castells, 2013; Chadwick, 2017; Jungherr et  al., 2019; Maia, 2018a; Williams & Carpini, 2011). Often, journalists and media professionals are not the most influential players (Alves, 2021; Entman & Usher, 2018; Newman et al., 2022; Nieborg & Poell, 2018). At the same time, people have unprecedented tools to search, archive and circulate diverse content—personalised and customised material, scientific information, news and so on (Bruns, 2008, 2021; Chadwick, 2017, 2019; Maia, 2018a; Vaccari & Chadwick, 2020). Users establish dynamic interactions on each platform, commenting, sharing, liking or adding new textual or visual elements to the original messages (Burgess & Green, 2018; Chadwick et al., 2016; Chadwick et al., 2018; Ekström & Shehata, 2018; Jenkins et  al., 2013; Maia, 2018a, 2018b; van Dijck, 2013). Therefore, understanding the forms of influence for opinion formation, public debates and coordination of collective actions has become much more complex in digital environments. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy cannot afford to ignore these interfaces between formal discussion in institutional forums and more mundane discussions and, consequently, the neighbouring field of media communication. The separation that has prevailed over the past two decades between deliberation studies in legislatures or mini-publics and those in everyday informal settings is quite understandable. Legislatures are designed to host political discussions and disagreements. Archon Fung referred to mini-publics as “more perfect public spheres” (2003, p. 338), insofar as conditions for collective discussion are built as close as possible to ideal norms of deliberation. This means offering space, resources and incentives for respectful listening and discursive exchange, including strategies to compensate for suboptimal conditions. As pointed out in Chap. 2, several types of citizens’ assemblies are planned to engage citizens in qualified

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

39

discussions, with learning and deliberation opportunities and policy-­ making recommendation methods (Fishkin, 2009, 2018; Karpowitz et al., 2012; Lindell et al., 2017). In contrast, the settings of everyday discussions, including media-based communication, are plagued by various democratic deficits and shortcomings, deliberately speaking. These include: (a) misinformation and inattention from the majority of participants; (b) unequal conditions of participation, and inequalities based on social imbalances, class differences, group status and so on; (c) absence of mechanisms to curb disrespect and intolerant attacks; (d) fragmentation and like-minded communication; and (e) media-based strategies to promote the voices or interests of the most powerful actors, at the expense of the disadvantaged and the least resourced; (f) commercialisation and strategic manipulation. We have argued that normative theory is essential for untangling deliberation and different forms of communication; and tracking behaviours that contribute to or disrupt discursive engagement in a practical way (Steiner et al., 2017; Maia et al., 2017c). The abstract picture of informal political discussions offered in the earlier literature of deliberative theory is quite unsatisfactory. One of our central arguments in this chapter is that the most influential settings today for everyday political discussions are not “abstract” spaces. The ever-expanding studies of online communication have provided much evidence that the digital media landscape is a highly differentiated terrain (Baek et al., 2012; Chadwick, 2019; Chadwick et al., 2018; Ekström & Shehata, 2018; Grönlund et al., 2009; Vaccari & Chadwick, 2020). Different online settings have distinct aims, affordances and context that produce different types of communicative interactions; and researchers cannot extrapolate from one location to another without performing a systematic comparative analysis, as we will demonstrate in Chaps. 5 and 6. It can be argued that highly unequal conditions of participation in public communication processes, control of information, or political elites and media professionals’ strategy to deviate attention from matters of common interest have been central to mass media studies from the beginning. On the one hand, concerns about obstacles to constructive communicative exchange in the hybrid media environment—with regard to communication fragmentation, like-minded discussion clusters, selective exposure and polarisation—represent continuities in digital communication research in the last 15 years (Coleman & Moss, 2012; Davies & Chandler, 2011; Kies, 2010; Kies & Nanz, 2013; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014;

40 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Stromer-­ Galley & Wichowski, 2011; van Dijck, 2013). On the other hand, algorithmic manipulation, spread of lies and circulation of disinformation, harmful microtargeting and mass surveillance are unprecedented (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018; Blumler, 2018; Dahlgren, 2018; Neuman, 2016; Pfetsch, 2018; van Aelst et  al., 2017; Splichal, 2022b; Waisbord, 2018). It is well-known that the digitalisation of communication and the Internet do not make the communication system more “egalitarian” or “horizontal” (Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Miller & Vaccari, 2020; Tucker et al., 2017). Compared to mass media organisations and the corresponding information control, the concentration of the ownership structure of quasi-monopolistic corporations (Google, Facebook, etc.) increased the potential of manipulative strategies, through obscure datification mechanisms to filter, select and direct informational flows (Splichal, 2022b; Schlesinger, 2020). Automated or troll-driven messages generated by wellresourced actors create huge imbalances in communication exchanges. The new round of discussion of deliberation in dark times, which followed the systemic turn, provided an opportunity to reflect on old problems of conceptualisation and ways of observing and evaluating the linkages in the political system, while seeking new approaches to solve them. Keeping in mind the fluidity and multidirectional nature of communication improves the effectiveness of explanations of communicative exchanges across a set of interrelated institutions and interrelated categories of actors, including ordinary citizens. The challenges of resizing global agency, addressing issues that ultimately require commitment to complex areas of policy or social strategy, place communication in the centre stage and intensify the effort to build a new system of regulatory mechanisms (Blumler & Coleman, 2021; Schlesinger, 2020; Splichal, 2022a, 2022b; Trenz et al., 2021).

An Integrated Approach for the Research Agenda To overcome the narrow view of intermediation in a deliberative system, it is important to keep in mind that the current functioning of legislatures, administrative bodies, parties, religious organisations, civic associations and interest groups use different types of media to interact with citizens. They continually provide inputs for communication with ordinary citizens and receive direct feedback (Benkler et al., 2018; Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Chadwick, 2019; Chadwick et al., 2018; Chambers, 2020a;

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

41

Maia, 2012b, 2018a; Mansbridge & Macedo, 2019; de Vreese et  al., 2018). Once mobile media has been incorporated into daily routines, most categories of actors are now forced to operate the interconnected digital environments; and social media have become an important source of information (Maia, 2018a; Newman et al., 2020; Swart et al., 2018). Thus, maintaining rigid boundaries between discursive practices in formal and informal settings can be a sterile effort. In this scenario, we claim that tracking communicative practices in different settings is a promising research agenda. We argue throughout this book that examining political discussions, whether in legislatures and formal forums or in informal arenas or digital platforms, requires careful identification of the specifics of each discussion context. These factors include: designs, forms of access, level of identifiability of participants, presence of moderation, possibilities for communication and sharing strategies (i.e., text, photos and videos) and so on (Chadwick, 2019; Esau et  al., 2017, 2020; Himmelroos, 2017; Kies, 2010; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014; Stromer-Galley & Wichowski, 2011). In our view, a systemic approach facilitates a more balanced account of media practices and a broader analysis of social relations and institutional conditions. The challenge for current research is to move beyond the dichotomous distinction between producer and consumer roles that has prevailed for decades in media and communication studies (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018). In contrast to the mass media era, when major media organisations had control over broader communicative processes, and journalistic practices operated gatekeepers through screening and filtering mechanisms, different actors now engage with a large number of users and a broader audience. Digital communication circulates through multiple channels, regardless of whether it is generated by governmental-administrative agents, mainstream media organisations, alternative vehicles, bloggers, civic organisations, bots and the users themselves (Chadwick, 2019; Engesser et al., 2017; Vaccari & Chadwick, 2020; de Vreese et al., 2018). Simultaneous Types of Practices Rooted in the daily lives of millions of people, digital media allows users to engage with user-generated information by commenting, sharing, liking or adding new textual or visual elements to other users’ original messages (Chadwick, 2013; Chadwick et  al., 2016). It may seem banal to

42 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

point out that the rise of mobile technology allows ordinary citizens to choose to connect to public discussions whenever and wherever they choose, and online communication occurs continuously (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018). Online networks make it easy for political actors, organised groups and ordinary people to quickly share their concerns to reach a massive audience (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Chadwick, 2013; Chadwick et al., 2016). The resources and opportunities offered by digital media—to enable contestation, the personalisation of messages and the dissemination of the social protest beyond those directly involved—constitute impressive transformations in the dynamics of collective action around the world. For example, digitally enabled massive protests exemplify the crucial role played by social media, bypassing official sources and information provided by traditional mass media. Such digital networks can be mobilised by voices that claim inclusion, democratisation and cosmopolitanism in different contexts (in episodes such as “Arab Spring”, “Occupy movements”, “Black Lives Matter”, “Me too” and environmental movements) or voices gravitating around nationalism, white supremacy and anti-­ immigrant policies in episodes such as the Brexit referendum in the UK, right-wing Trumpism in the US, Bolsonarism in Brazil and the anti-­ vaccination movements in different societies (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Tucker et al., 2017; Trenz et al., 2021). Local/Global Undoubtedly, the potential to search, produce, archive and distribute messages generate profound social changes (Chadwick, 2019; Maia, 2018b; Newman et al., 2020; Swart et al., 2018). There is a strong tendency for technology-oriented approaches to disregard social conditions. From this perspective, social processes are often seen as subordinate to (as effects or consequences) of technological developments, rather than a two-way process that overlaps and co-evolves together. Our claim is that technological changes are deeply implicated in social and historical developments. The “connective logic” of digital interactions (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Bimber et  al., 2012; Hjarvard, 2018; Milan, 2015; Ohme, 2019) only makes sense, therefore, if we pay attention to the situated practices of actors embedded in relational interactions in a matrix of institutions, social arrangements and political conditions.

3  BRINGING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE MEDIA BACK… 

43

To speak in terms of a “whole” (whether conceived at the local, national or transnational level, e.g.), we need higher levels of generality. From a systemic approach, one can reconstruct findings of communicative dynamics and offer interpretations—always provisional—of broader groups of interrelated actors, institutions and settings. Throughout this book, we look attentively at informal discussions and practical reasoning in everyday life, associated with processes of formation and mobilisation of preferences. To a large extent, this approach is important for explaining how citizens interpret political institutions, set the political agenda and engage in social conflicts that somehow shape, maintain and transform the social order.

CHAPTER 4

Justifications as a Linkage Mechanism

A systemic approach invites scholars to investigate ways in which different settings and actors relate to each other, keeping in mind the dynamism of interactions. Yet, a recurring challenge is how to conceptualize links or connections in the political system, and deal with the very perception of empirical variables. This chapter investigates reason-giving as a practice that entails connections and disconnections of political judgment that transcends time and space. Reasons backing up positions on controversial issues circulate in distinct arenas. This chapter is designed to explore justification as an “evaluative-­ descriptive” concept. We argue that tracking the substantive content of reasons is a theoretically promising and empirical valuable way to deal with these challenges. We seek to demonstrate that (1) mapping the substantive content of arguments provides a mechanism for assessing components in justifications that attach or divide actors across a set of institutions or social places; (2) empirical scholars can become more self-conscious of the type of interactions in reasoning that are going on; and (3) this analytical framework can be developed both upwards, at a broader system level, and downwards to the micro level; and there are different ways of presenting data. We start by briefly surveying some of the main challenges to study linkages in scholarly work in the field, and introduce major attempts to account © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_4

45

46 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

for connections in the systemic approach in the current literature. We elaborate a scheme of explanations and build on it to specify and expand our analytical approach. In the sequence, we revisit the theoretical framework of reason-giving as a social practice and examine the concept of the binding force of reasons, inquiring into broader social processes (Habermas, 2006, 2017, 2022; Laden, 2012). Next, we provide some methodological guidelines and practical strategies for mapping the substantive content of reasons for empirical research. Finally, we highlight some of the benefits of this analytical framework in pragmatic and epistemic terms, and explore implications for research on deliberation and political communication fields.

Challenges to Identifying Linkages in a Systemic Approach We have argued in Chap. 2 that the notion of a social whole constituted by interdependent parts with distinctive goals, based on division of labour and relative levels of autonomy, invites empirical researchers to address the complexity of relations. Thus, surveying linkages in the political system also became central. In Jane Mansbridge and colegas’ words, “it is necessary to go beyond the study of individual institutions and processes to examine their interaction in the system as a whole” (Mansbridge, 2012, p. 2). More expansive analysis is notoriously difficult to be operationalized in empirical research. The very idea of a system requires inclusion of distinct settings or categories of actors. Most scholars in this field highlight the role played by  political representatives, the media, experts, activists, social movements and civil society organizations that compose a deliberative system (Dryzek et al., 2019; Lazer et al., 2015; Maia, 2018a; Mansbridge et al., 2012; Mendonça, 2016). Michael Neblo and Avery White (2018) draw a similar list of “key transfer sites”: the media, citizens, parties and interest groups, mini-publics, legislatures, courts, and the executive/ administrate State. There are various ways in which actors and actions can be (inter)dependent upon one another. For deliberative democracy purposes, attending to communicative processes is crucial. In this book, we are particularly interested in exploring division of epistemic labour, different dynamics of public discussion, provision of reasons and shared agreements in actors’ political judgment.

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

47

Deliberative scholars have adopted different terms, such as “transmissions”, “translations” or “connections” to refer to linkages. It has been acknowledged that the term “transmission” evokes a simplified view of the communicative processes, as a flat flow of messages that are directly transported or blocked from one place to another (Mendonça, 2016; Hendriks, 2016; Boswell et al., 2016). Our first claim is that we should not use simple models of message flows to explain macro outcomes, when turning to communicative processes in macro scale. Large-scale processes of communication also refer to complex ways that individuals define themselves, their feelings and needs, and interpret their concerns in interaction with others. Employing the language of processual relationships certainly confers more attention to different components of interactions under analysis. Boswell et al. (2016) capture this point well when they call for “deeper analysis of how diverse viewpoints are expressed, acknowledged and facilitated, and whether the claims associated with these viewpoints cross-­pollinate different deliberative sites” (Boswell et al., 2016, p. 3). This understanding parallels our proposal to focus on processes of communication, and particularly on justifications. Analysis of substantive justification reveals the speaker’s values, preferences and commitments in different courses of action. However, the questions at stake here are not merely terminological, referring to the name to be given to linkages. A fundamental concern is with mechanisms that integrate (or fail to integrate) an interrelated set of institutions and an interrelated category of agents. Again, according to Mansbridge and colleagues: Parts of a system may have relationships of complementarity or displacement. In a complementary relationship two wrongs can make a right (Mansbridge et  al., 2012, p.  3). … An institution that looks deliberately exemplary on its own, such as well-designed mini public, can look less beneficial in a systemic perspective when it displaces other useful deliberative institutions, such as partisan or social movements. One virtue of a deliberative system is that failures in one institution can be compensated for in another part. (…) But when the parts of a deliberative system are too tightly coupled to one another, this self-corrective quality is lost”. (Mansbridge et al., 2012, pp. 22–23)

Some critics have contended that the systemic approach is based on a mechanical view of relations, including the false premise that apparent obstacles in a given part could (or should) make a positive contribution at

48 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

the system level (Gunn, 2017, p.  113). These criticisms may apply if researchers assume a homogeneous view of the category of actors and structural explanations. When developing systemic analysis, scholars may invoke convenient assumptions about effects and impacts that render the explanation tautological. Our second claim is that, instead of a crude, automatic view of relationships, the dynamic view of social practices requires a processual account of how people do things together. If we keep in mind the micro-macro linkage, the intricate webs of communication related to the capacity of individuals and groups to produce symbols and meanings becomes therefore fundamental. Consequently, the application of a systemic approach should always be anchored in culture and historical developments. As discussed in Chap. 2, we believe the aforementioned sort of critique rests on an unnecessarily reductionist model. The abundant literature that revised functionalism and its successor “systems theory” have long incorporated a pragmatic view of interactions and cultural and historical explanations (Alexander, 1995, 1998; Hamilton, 1996; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995). A processual view of social practices considers that individuals and groups, while following routines and being located in social hierarchies, are ceaselessly involved in conflictual or cooperative encounters that negotiate shared meanings, and these are ultimately open to adjustment, reappraisal and transformation. Investigators attracted to the systemic approach are pressed to account for “puzzling” macro-level relationships or broader outcomes to deliberation (Dryzek, 2017; Goodin, 2018). Our third claim is, what constitutes positive actions at a system level is a complex issue, and researchers’ assessments rest on empirical analysis. Perhaps, the best defence for adopting the systemic approach is that such an analytical framework only makes sense if located on empirical grounds, in historically and culturally defined contexts, as we discussed in the previous chapter. How matters are built as collective problems and how agreement and disagreement evolve are contingent questions. Therefore, we advocate that examining reason-giving along diverse courses of actions and broader justificatory dynamics seem helpful to deal with linkage difficulties. Inquiries about reason-giving and justification dynamics across settings and categories of actors can prove useful for developing empirical research. In the following, we re-focus on substantive content of justifications to build coding categories and analyse variations that can be interpreted in a theoretically meaningful way.

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

49

The Nature of Linkages Because there is no standardized concept of linkage, to start, pointing out different strategies adopted by previous research offers important guidelines. It should be stressed that macro-level theory is not intended to offer detailed (or descriptively accurate) accounts of individuals and their interactions but to render complexity of macro-level relationships more tractable. Empirical scholars have focused on different mechanisms to account for linkage (mechanisms of connection and disconnection).  We identify three types of relationships: 1. Macro, or system, level of relationships: Some scholars have focused on existing political arrangements in state-based bodies and legislative institutions or citizen initiatives, including representative mechanisms and participatory opportunities for citizens’ discussions. For instance, John Boswell, Carolyn Hendriks and Selen Ercan (2016) examined semi-formal institutions, government sponsored initiatives and mini-­publics to advance citizens’ inputs and narratives for executive and parliamentary functions. 2. Micro-level or individual level of relationships to macro level. Other scholars have focused on certain agents within existing institutional arrangements that facilitate or organize deliberative events. Ricardo Mendonça (2016) offers an illustration of how civil servants and bureaucrats play an essential role in legislatures, by planning participatory events, engaging civic organizations and implementing actions for deliberative discussions and more efficacious decision-making. 3. Macro, or system, level of communicative exchange. Attention here is placed on communicative processes that spread in space and time (Ferree et al., 2002; Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2009; Maia & Choucair, 2022; Parkinson et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2008; Schneider, 2008). In a previous work (Maia et al., 2017c), we examined, for example, exchanges of arguments about a issue-specific controversy (a bill of law  for relocating a bus station from downton to a more distant district in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazilz) in a series of legislative public hearings and three major local news in the period of two years. The objective was to locate the experts’ arguments (appeals to technical arguments, interest groups and common good defined in utilitarian or altruistic terms) in relation to justifications offered by other participants for decision-making; and accountability with disputed reasons in face-to-face legislative meetings and media-based communication.

50 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

This sketch, although quite simple, is useful to highlight different ways to empirically observe linkage in the political system. Most frequently, analysis at a macro level relies on the investigation of political processes to advance interpretation that interconnects with many interactive layers, related to groups, organizations and institutions—as explanations in types (1) and (2). In these models, investigators focus on deliberative events or agents as the point of departure for empirical investigation of linkages. For example, Carolyn Hendriks et al. (2020) use qualitative analysis to illuminate case studies about processes to mending democracy, to strengthen connections between voters and elected officials, ameliorate discussions in the public sphere, and citizen participation in policymaking. Another type of analysis, a more inductive one, focuses on variables that can be tracked systematically in a large number of settings (type 3). For example, Parkinson et al. (2020) compare clusters of words related to the Scottish independence debate on formal and informal arenas, via Structural Topic Modeling (STM). They employ a database of online forums (blogs, social media and comment sections) and documents from campaign groups, traditional media, political parties, think tanks and other sources in Westminster and Holyrood during the same period (27 months). Let us reiterate that systemic analyses are difficult to meet. Therefore, the aforementioned operationalisations and developments provide an opportunity to build and expand upon them. Whereas type 1 and type 2 offer contextualized analysis of actors and dense interpretation of social and political relationships, these models fail to provide variables for systematic measurement. Type 3 can be seen as one response to the need to deal with a large database. Parkinson et  al. (2020) research tracked the congruence of clusters of words in political agenda and public discussions. However, patterns of words may cover all sorts of communicative exchange, without differentiation. This operation alone is insufficient to provide a comprehensive basis for investigating meaningful relationships among people and groups in a given political system. By adopting a systemic approach in our research, we seek above all to understand how reason-giving is being played out in different settings, and patterns of justifications transcending institutions and actor categories. For instance, we track who is issuing what reasoned claims, set of reasons in different arenas, what sort of overlapping or continuity of claim is observed in civic arenas and empowered spaces or decision-making bodies. Our analysis employs an interpretative account of contexts and reason-­ giving practices (types 1 and 2), and looks at variance of substantive

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

51

content of justifications and reasoning perspectives (type 3). This helps to investigate connections and disconnection in the political system, alignments and clashes in political judgment. As we indicate in the introduction of this chapter, this analysis can be developed both at the micro level in specific settings and at a broader system level—and to this we now turn. Reason Giving Is a Social Practice Deliberative democracy has been defined as a “talk-centric model” (Chambers, 2003, 2018; Floridia, 2018) and, from this point of view, justification and argumentation are fundamental to democratic life. Reasons refer to considerations that speakers provide to explain why they have certain beliefs, feelings, or intentions or why they make certain requests, promises, judgments, and so on (Habermas, 2017). Offering reasons pervade a matrix of formal institutions, from parliaments and decision-­ making forums, through expert forums or civic associations, until everyday conversation. Some thinkers have defined reason-giving more strictly as justifications to support demands and clearly articulated conclusions, as in formal discussion situations that pave way for a collective decision-making in legislatures, organized meetings and citizen assemblies (Cohen, 1997; Thompson, 2008). In Joshua Cohen’ words (1997, p. 74), in deliberative discussions, participants, “state reasons for advancing proposals, supporting them, or criticizing them”. In informal settings and everyday conversation, offering reasons can be understood in a less rigorous way (Conover & Searing, 2005; Laden, 2012; Mansbridge, 1999). Although informal and unstructured, everyday conversations are essential for citizens to thematise their concerns and articulate demands, from the perspective of their own lived experiences (Maia 2017, 2018b), as we discussed in the previous chapter.  As  Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and  Christiane Grill have put it echoing Habermas, “from a systemic point of view, citizens’ engagement in formalized public discussions can only fulfill its function of mediating between ordinary people’s lifeworld and the institutions of governance if it is coupled to their informal day-to-day conversations” (Schimitt-Beck & Grill, 2020, p.  4). In everyday discussions, Christopher Karpowitz and Chad Raphael (2014, p. 219) contend that it is enough to consider reason as “any statement that answers ‘the why question’ about the basis for one’s position”. We understand that both definitions  of justification—a more strict view of argumentative exchange and a more-flexible one of everyday

52 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

conversations—retain the basic feature of reasoned claim, that is, a speech act containing at least one reason. In the real-world, both types of reason-­ giving are constituted by certain meanings that can be tracked in social settings and detailed contexts (Maia et al., 2020a). To develop our approach, we start with three basic assumptions: 1. Reason giving is a social practice. Offering reason occurs in different ways in distinct places. We argue that the substantive meaning of reasons, despite being expressed in various discursive formats and styles, in conjunction with other actions, can be conceptually distinguished and empirically operationalized. 2. Offering reasons is normatively foundational. Reasons that one accepts generates attachments, which may entail a “binding force” (Habermas, 1984, 1987, 1996, 2017). 3. Tracking the substantive content of reasons enables researchers to raise different inquiries to craft empirical investigation. Scholars can observe and map alignments and divisions among actors in various contexts. Sets of reasons can be examined at different scales, in different forums and across wider audiences. To generate a systemic analysis focusing on a specific issue controversy is important. We consider reason-giving as social practices. This means that people offer reasons while doing things together in multifarious situations, embedded in distinct settings and contexts. Thus, offering reasons in legislative debates, interviews, news reports, face-to face-discussions, posts and comments in digital platforms are processes with their own interactive logics (Maia et al., 2020a). Reason-giving should not be conceived as a cold and calculating practice that often comes to mind when one refers to reasoned arguments. On the contrary, we understand that cognition, moral judgment and reasoning are deeply associated with emotions (Habermas, 1990, 1998; Krause, 2008; Maia & Hauber, 2019; Neblo, 2003, 2015; Nussbaum, 2004, 2006; Rehg, 1994). In Chaps. 7 and 8, we will explore how reasoning has an inextricably emotional base; and emotional concerns pervade speakers’ attempts to explain what matters, disentangle details of common worries or interests and work out commonality and differences with others. Following the pragmatist tradition of speech acts theory in line with John L. Austin (1975 [1962]) and George Mead’s (1934) theory of symbolic interactionism, we conceive that claim-making and claim-receiving

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

53

are practices that are formed, expressed and interpreted in specific situations and contexts. In spite of being expressed in various linguistic structures, articulation of words in corresponding sentences, the substantive meaning of reasons remains. In other words, justification X (why Y should or should not be done) can be expressed by different actors and in different spaces. The concept of substantive justification can be classified in clear delimited categories for quantitative analysis. It is also theoretically meaningful. Reasons and justifications are stated and developed by individuals, groups and organizations in defining problems, producing diagnosis or attributing responsibility, processing commonalities and differences with others, searching for solutions, at different levels  (Maia et  al., 2020a). Looking at reasons helps us to make sense of discussions taking place in micro situations (such as face-to-face encounters) up to much broader layers of practices, networks, encounters, groups, organizations and settlements. To summarize, to move from a rich micro-level analysis of reason-­ giving practices in specific settings to a more sustained theoretical macro analysis, we focus on substantive content of reasons (as units of analysis) in our research. It should be kept in mind that issuing arguments can take different discursive shapes or formats (in face-to-face communication, interviews, written texts, speeches in parliaments) and styles (tone of voice, vocabularies and language use). Rather treating speech acts as texts and then aggregating data from different parts of the political system, we advocate that investigators should develop an integrated analysis, to grasp the complementary interactions between actors and argumentative practices embedded in distinct situations and contexts.

The Binding Force of Reasons To rethink the role of justifications as a linking process on a broader scale, we adopt the premise that “accepting and giving reasons” is normatively foundational. According to Jürgen Habermas, arguments have an internal force that makes them compelling and acceptable to others. In Habermas’ words, “communicative action refers to a process of argumentation that those taking part justify their validity claims before an ideally expanded audience” (1996, p. 332). Offering a reason X why Y should or should not be done” (Steiner, 2012, p.  270) constitutes invitations that can be accepted or rejected by interlocutors or listeners (Habermas, 1996, 2017; Laden, 2012).

54 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

To be sure, deliberative scholars have dedicated important attention to the “weighing of reasons” process in interpersonal relationships when “reflecting” on values or preferences about policies and issues of common concern. The emphasis has been typically placed on understanding conditions (either in face-to-face or digital communication) and normative procedures such as equalitarian and reciprocal interactions, mutual respect, non-coercive and inclusive commitments. However, searching whether deliberation is or is not present in specific settings is not exactly our intent here (or, at least, not our primary one). In our research, we turn attention to the substantive content of reasons. From the vantage point of systemic approach, an expanded notion of reason-exchange requires us to understand that justifications transcend the boundaries of settings. Promoting this extension is easier if we look at the substantive content of reasons. This means, to begin, an emphasis on reasons as public, social, and shareable, rather than a product of a single individual mind (Habermas, 2017; see also Laden, 2012; Maia et  al., 2018). Considerations and explanations that speakers provide in favour of something, that is, a justification of why they hold a certain opinion and why something should or should not be done, moves in a space of reasons. They are not internal objects “in the head”. Second, it is important to consider that reasoning is not just a matter of giving one’s reasons, but also of considering and evaluating those of others. Thus, when trying to explain processes through which individuals and groups articulate claims regarding preferences, values or possible courses of action and their consequences, we have to turn to collective processes. The preferences of individuals can be studied as linked to groups or populations, against the background of culture and history (Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; Lockwood, 1964; Honneth, 1996). It is useful to introduce here Habermas’ account of the “space of reasons’‘. In pluralistic societies, individuals are often exposed to a space of reasons, which Habermas refers to as a field of interlinked reasons that are connected by sets of inferential relations. For the most part, these connections remain unclear once such a net is embedded in a “non-verbalizable or pre-predicative horizon of meaning” (Habermas, 2017, Kindle Locations 1502 of 7341). Given Habermas’ communicative-action logic, individuals inevitably ask for and offer reasons to coordinate their daily interactions (Habermas, 1984, 1996, 2017). He further claims that we move in a space of reasons, ever present in the lifeworld; and if we are required to do so, we articulate these reasons to explain why we have

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

55

certain beliefs, feelings or intentions or why we make certain requests, promises, judgments and so forth. Focusing on the content of reasons has an additional complexity or characteristic that we call for attention: reasons have a binding force. This is a descriptive and normative concept. Attention to the information carried in the speech act is necessary to understand what participants take into account when accepting or rejecting claims. Evoking similar reasons creates attunements in the way people self-define themselves and orient in relation to others, in terms of their preferences and concerns (Adams, 2014; Habermas, 1984, 1996; Laden, 2012; Steiner, 2012). In Habermas’ words, “it is of crucial importance to understand that through the creation of such social bonds, via successful illocutionary acts and criticisable and justifiable validity claims, rational behavior is achieved” (Habermas, 1976, p. 34). To use Habermas’ vocabulary, accepted reasons, or the forceless force of “better arguments”, produce shared agreements that are the basis for un-coerced and rationally motivated actions. A great challenge for deliberative theorists interested in the systemic approach is to find a bridge between judgments achieved in micro-­ situations, on the one hand, and reasons exchanged in different places in society, on the other hand. Efforts to track connections can be expanded, of course, to different practices and relationships (types 1 and 2). For our purpose, it is possible to say that debates on controversial issues involve many actors in distinct places and communicative situations (type 3). Our assumption here is that individuals, groups, organizations and so forth, often state reasons that reveal their orientations, preferences or recommendations over the opportunities of communication they have. Our model focusing on the substantive content of reasons helps us to connect: (a) patterns of justification in varying processes of communication, and (b) interrelated actors and practices in distinct environments. If we admit that the substantive content of reasons is in the ultimate analysis collective or public, we have to find ways of dealing with it. From a systemic point of view, we can grasp different types of communicative practice that are going on simultaneously; and the content of the reasons can be classified and measured. Reasons can be expressed in interpersonal relationships, offered in public or to the public (Habermas, 1996, 2017; Kock, 2012; Maia, 2012a; Maia et al., 2020b; Peters et al., 2008). Reasons help us to position ourselves and locate (or work out) where we stand, that is, what propositions we share and what we stand apart (Laden, 2012). To illustrate this point, let us consider the opposing arguments. The first is in

56 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

favour of lowering the age of criminal responsibility: “We need tougher criminal law to put adolescents in jail, in order to curb delinquency and improve social security”. The second is against the lowering policy proposal: “Jailing adolescents in ordinary adult prisons does more harm than good: it puts adolescents in contact with real criminals, leading to recidivism”. Tracking the meaning encoded on reasons allows for specification of considerations of problem definition, attribution of responsibility and proposed solutions that align or divide actors. In a previous work (Maia et al., 2018), we distinguished different levels of change in the space of reasons in small group discussions. Consistent with that account, we operationalize the substantive content of arguments, seen as “variables” issued by different categories of actors in selected settings. Similar substantive arguments or justifications suggest common reasoned viewpoints or orientations. At the micro-level situations, mapping the meaning encoded in reasons offers a way to clarify the nature of agreements and disagreements, how participants interpret problems, recommend solutions, stage the conflict and so on. At the macro level, our approach directs attention to collective patterns of justification. By investigating reasons displayed by different actors, our research can track alignments and divisions in different spaces, and patterns of justification in debate sides. As a complement to our approach, it is equally important to emphasize that the social or cultural background knowledge of everyday reasoning is a changing domain. Certainly, several reasons or justifications are based on “habits”, “naturalized perspectives” or non-reflected considerations. Contestatory practices may lead to piecemeal transformations in social patterns of justification (Habermas, 2017; Honneth, 2002; Maia & Vimieiro, 2013; Fawcett et al., 2017; Rostbøll, 2008). Deliberative scholars are particularly concerned with deliberation because exchanging and weighing arguments potentially triggers self-reflection, this may be conducive to politicization, since what is viewed as natural becomes an object of reflection. Reasoning together and collective reason exchange help problematize shared meanings of everyday understandings at a societal level.

Operationalizing Reasons as Linkage Deliberative scholars and studies on citizen assemblies are beginning to take much closer attention to broader communicative exchanges. Our third, and final, claim in this chapter is that reason exchange in a more

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

57

extensive form (macro analysis) can be articulated with contextualized analysis (micro analysis). An important premise adopted in our research is that reasons backing up positions on controversial issues circulate in distinct arenas. Our central point is that the substantive content of arguments can be distinguished and systematically mapped. It should be noticed that a certain reason (justification X) in favour or against a norm or policy proposal can be expressed through different words in corresponding sentences, along with several discursive practices (face-to-face communication, interviews, written texts, speeches in parliaments) and distinct linguistic styles (tone of voice, modes of language in usage, etc.); for example, the reasons for “teenagers keep breaking the law because they know they will not be punished for their acts” can be expressed in different ways: (a) Should teenagers who kill go unpunished? Whoever kills should be sentenced regardless of age because knowing they will receive a penalty avoids transgressions”; (b) “being aware of impunity, youth criminals do whatever they want; and even mock the police themselves”; (c)“Minors in this country can do anything, kill, steal, rape, and still leave the police station laughing”. The three examples display a similar propositional content (justification X), in spite of being articulated through different choice of words and discursive styles in different contexts—that is, in debates in legislative public hearing, in news media stories (quote of a source) and in a post in Facebook. Indeed, there is a long tradition in political communication and sociological studies of mapping the discourses that appear in the public scene. Examples include public debates on abortion (Ferree et al., 2002; Maia & Choucair, 2022), gun control (Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Maia, 2009), same-sex marriage (O’Connor, 2017), voting systems (Pilon, 2009), educational policy (Saraisky, 2015) and use of technology (Peters et al., 2008; Schneider, 2008). These studies seek to identify opinions, arguments and frames about controversial issues in media outlets content—by doing this, scholars are able to reconstruct public controversies. To summarize, systemic analysis: (a) involves several actors (individuals, category of actors) that can be interdependent; (b) in different settings and contexts; and (c) actors can relate to each other at different levels, through different types of action when offering reasons. Thus, (d) the content of reasons (despite being expressed in distinct forms and styles) can be tracked. Mapping reasons systematically enables different types of aggregation, allowing us to observe the set of arguments employed in distinct settings, segmented by categories of actors, and eventual patterns

58 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

of justification transcending particular spaces. Overall, this analysis also indicates the fluidity of justification processes across the political system.

Why Focusing on the Substantive Content of Reasons? Most scholars interested in the systemic approach point to the need to develop multidimensional analysis, with integration of methods (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Schneiderhan & Khan, 2018). The combination of micro and macro analysis is at the heart of our research. We investigate reason-giving: (a) within 3 arenas located in different parts of the political system; (b) within-outside these arenas, including citizens’ online discussion embedded in each arena; and (c) across a set of interrelated arenas and a set of interrelated actors. In more precise terms, in Chap. 5 we investigate distinct processes of reason-giving that attach and divide elite-actors in the context of legislatures, news media and a Facebook page run by a large network of civic associations. In Chap. 6, we include online forums that are hosted in these arenas, in order to capture citizens’ reason-giving in each peculiar context. We list, in this final section, central features of our analytical framework. Re-focusing on substantive content of justifications is beneficial to developing pragmatic and more epistemic-oriented explanations—which requires greater sensibility to historical and cultural factors. Some of these topics are addressed more explicitly in the following chapters. However, not all points will receive equal empirical attention and operationalization in the research presented in this book. Pragmatic Explanations We have been arguing that the activity of offering reasons—about an issue-specific controversy—takes varied shapes in different settings. Micro analysis of deliberation within forums usually employs quantitative models that facilitate predictions. One of the most used and well-known scheme, the “Deliberative Quality Index” (DQI) (Steenbergen et al., 2003; Steiner et  al., 2004), focuses on several dimensions of deliberation. Regarding justification, it investigates the infrastructure of the claim, that is, logical linguistic structure, number of reasons offered and their level of completeness. It also distinguishes types of justifications related to the common

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

59

good or group self-interests and abstract principles, but without unpacking substantive meanings. Although this analysis is notoriously important to capture the quality of deliberation within singular forums (Steenbergen et al., 2003; Steiner et al., 2004; Bächtiger et al., 2010: 41; Steiner, 2012), it is not enough for assessing and evaluating larger justificatory dynamics in social wholes. Following the notion of claims, defined as a speech act containing a ‘demand’ (i.e., justification, or reasoned argument) (Steiner et al., 2004, p. 55), we distinguish the content of justifications. Measurements can be carried out with analytical rigor. In our research, an important step was to build an overall list of pro and con arguments in a standardized way (Ferree et al., 2002; Maia, 2009; Maia & Choucair, 2022). Then, we created a set of categories for content analysis of the corresponding empirical material (such as debate transcripts, news stories, social media posts and comments, etc.) (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2017). All our categories were submitted to reliability tests. At the level of settings, claims for and against certain controversial issues can be tracked under clearly specified conditions. To expand analysis beyond forums, we observed the network of reasons being expressed by distinct categories of actors, in different settings. This helps to elucidate discursive dynamics (patterns of justification) directly specified in social and empirical terms. At a more general level, the sort of arguments producing overlaps and alignments can be interpreted as an enlarged justificatory dynamic. However, it is important to keep in mind that the pragmatic view of reason-­giving and argumentation is based on the idea that meaning evolves constantly. This implies that expressions of justification are not stable across categories of actors and neither across settings. Tracking the substantive content of reasons, as we have been stressing, draws the researcher’s attention to the intricate connections of judgment from different actor categories across interrelated settings. Researchers can elaborate distinct types of aggregation and interpret substantive justifications, seeking to uncover agreements and disagreements in micro and macro levels of analysis. Epistemic Explanations In any public controversy, we can expect a plurality of claims and points of views being played out, with adversarial definitions of problems and proposed solutions. While a number of methods have been developed to deal

60 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

with procedural dimension of deliberation (Steenbergen et  al., 2003; Steiner et al., 2004; Bächtiger et al., 2010; Steiner, 2012), the epistemic dimension remains underexplored (Chambers, 2017; Estlund, 1997; Estlund & Landemore, 2018; Habermas, 2017; Landemore, 2013, 2017). Dealing with this dimension is always complicated in empirical research, insofar as researchers are external observers. Adjudicating on what is considered good, adequate or more efficacious in political conflicts, from external standards, is a perennial problem in deliberative studies (Chambers, 2017; Estlund, 1997; Estlund & Landemore, 2018; Habermas, 2006, 2017; Landemore, 2013, 2017). By unpacking the substantive content of justification, scholars can reconstruct explanations provided by participants themselves regarding their preference and beliefs in political disputes. This contributes to clarify what participants consider as more relevant, true, right, generalisable, defensible and so forth (Maia et al., 2018). While determining “what the discussion is about” in a final way is beyond the scope of empirical researchers, directing attention to substantive justifications contributes to making the epistemic dimension a little more tractable. Observing substantive justifications also has implications to interpret contexts to a large extent. Given the renewed concern with threats to democratic principles and practices, as discussed in the previous chapter, intensified attention to epistemic problems is relevant. In some of our research (Choucair, 2022; Hauber, 2021; Maia et al., 2018; Santa Inês, 2022), the effort to unpack substantive content of reasons enabled us to tap into people’s commitment to values, beliefs or preferences and examine how certain claims—for instance, demand of white supremacy or appeals for military intervention to break the democratic order—produce binding agreements and group partisan alignments. Characterizing different conditions, opportunities and situations of reasoning and exploring dynamics of larger justificatory processes that violate democratic life and deliberation seems crucial nowadays. When these claims are openly expressed and defended parallel treatments of  substantive  content  that favour deliberative and non-deliberative practices are required. Multidimensional Analysis There has been so far very little analysis on substantive content of justifications and its relevance in public debates. In our research, we investigated

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

61

three important elements in public communication: arguments, perspectives of reasoning and emotions. Arguments In controversial matters, the existence of conflicting views, values and preferences is expected; and arguments for and against a particular proposal lead to contestation and dissent. While actors can influence one another with reasons and arguments, giving reasons may serve different purposes. In a previous work (Maia et al., 2020a), we discussed that participants may exchange reasons to clarify issues and problematic situations to achieve a better understanding of their claims, interests and values in a debate situation (Cohen, 1997; Dryzek, 2016; Habermas, 1996). Arguments may be issued for the specific purpose of solving problems, either to achieve an acceptable, negotiated, solution or compromise on the basis of respectively different reasons (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Steiner et al., 2004) or for reaching an agreement on competing claims or value-­ orientation on the basis of same reasons (Bohman, 1996; Bohman & Richardson, 2009; Habermas, 1996). Moreover, participants may exchange reasons to bring the conflict to the forefront and thus better structure a disagreement (Mansbridge et  al., 2010; Thompson, 2008). Lastly, reason-giving may be used for imposing, commanding, lecturing and reporting, and, in this case, there is not invitation for the hearer (or addressee) to engage in a dialogical, reciprocal, argumentative cooperation with the speaker (Laden, 2012). By researching theoretical and empirical studies, we defined the following functions to give a reason: (a) Clarification; (b) Search for a solution, subdivided into two codes, b(1) consensual format, b(2) negotiation format; (c) Staging a conflict; (d) Imposition (see Table 4.1).  rgumentation Perspective Types A Argumentation theories distinguish different forms of reasoning that have different concerns, types of evidence and each with its own burden of proof (Habermas, 1996, p. 160; 2017; Kock, 2012; Peters et al., 2008). We built on Habermas (1992, 1996) types of argumentation: pragmatic, ethical-political, and moral. Pragmatic argumentation refers to discussions in which participants seek efficacious or appropriate means for fulfilling previously established preferences and ends, with empirical emphasis. It is related to the expediency of action. Ethical-political argumentation refers to discussions in which participants question standard definitions of

62 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Table 4.1  Description of reason-giving functions Functions of reason-giving

Description

Clarification

The speaker gives reasons to elucidate a problem, search for a better definition or outlines what aspects of the problem should be addressed. The speaker gives reasons to achieve a solution to a problem or explains what should or should not be done to address it. Consensual format: participants aim at understanding each other’s arguments and take these reasons into consideration to transform beliefs or preferences to solve problems. There is a reciprocal weighing of stated reasons to find a solution based on these arguments. Negotiation format: participants are not required to change their beliefs or preferences. They seek an agreement about a potential problem that can be accepted by those involved, but there is no reciprocal inquiry or direct scrutiny of cognitive moral dissent; the compromise can be accepted for different reasons. The speaker gives reasons to clarify the disagreement between the interlocutors. The divergence is thematised explicitly in the speaker’s utterance. The speaker gives reasons to enforce hierarchy, authority, superior status or coercion.

Search for solution

Staging a conflict Imposition Maia et al. (2020a)

principles, norms or applications of such standards; and they seek to reach a self-understanding of values, beliefs or interests (and these become object of reflection) to advance real or possible action or social relations (Habermas, 1996, p. 160). Moral Argumentation on issues of justice is the discussions that arise when the participants examine the possibility of regulating their own concerns and accept norms of equal interest for all. We also included Legal argumentation that refers to reasons grounded on issues of legislation, norms and regulations. According to Peters et  al. (2008, p. 157), legal argumentation involves “the application of prevailing norms or constitutional principles, the conception and explanations or criticisms of such norms”. Each perspective of reasoning has a distinct normative structure and sorts of concerns but all can occur in controversial public debates (Habermas, 1996, p. 160; Kock, 2012). In the current research, we aggregated ethical and moral types of argumentation to work with clearly distinguished categories (Maia, 2009, 2012a): (a) pragmatic; (b) ethical-political- moral, and (c) legal. When analysing public debates, researchers can expect that multi-dimensional

4  JUSTIFICATIONS AS A LINKAGE MECHANISM 

63

reasoning, including these different types of concerns, enriches the perception of the problem under scrutiny. Looking at problems from ethical-­ moral, pragmatic and legal perspectives, in contrast to one-dimensional perspective, may create new understanding or alternative solutions for problem resolution (Habermas, 1996, p. 160; 2017; Kock, 2012; Peters et al., 2008). Our standard list of pro- and con-reasons was used to classify and track distinct perspectives of reasoning based on empirical data (See Table 5.2). Emotion Types Emotions lie at the centre of the present-day worries with public discussions. In Chaps. 7 and 8, we attempt to unravel four types of emotions that are associated with reason-giving in our empirical case: fear, hate, compassion and indignation. We examine the emotional dimension of reason-giving in formal and informal arenas and also along partisan debate sides. Since research on emotion is still nascent in the field of deliberation, we dedicate one chapter to explore our conceptual tools and another one to describe empirical operationalization and analytical steps. Historical and Cultural Explanations From the point of view of deliberative politics, analysis focusing on substantive arguments implies, to some extent, attention to cultural and historical factors as well. Justification processes are not explained in an abstract way, but in institutions or environments determined by factors related to historically, geographically and culturally defined contexts. In current systemic thinking, as we have been emphasizing, pragmatic models of communicative practices recommend seeing meaning in constant change. Historical and cultural elements are needed to interpret relationships that connect actors, in different environments, and patterns of justification, in complex communication processes. Again, rather than an all-encompassing inquiry, systemic thinking is suitable for building a more modest account of a complex phenomenon. More realistically, pragmatic, epistemic and historical or cultural explanations can be consistently articulated with each other. When seeking to understand substantive reasons circulating within and across elite arenas and citizens arenas, we are simultaneously approaching actual reasons generating agreement alignments and divisions across concrete people and institutions in Brazil.

CHAPTER 5

Reason-Giving across Arenas: Elite Actors

In this chapter, we focus on reason-giving as a process that links political judgement beyond the boundaries of settings. It is generally agreed that different parts of a political system play different roles in promoting deliberation (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Curato et al., 2019; Dryzek, 2017; Habermas, 2006, 2009; Maia, 2012a; Mansbridge et al., 2012). In this line, we expect that political judgement on matters of common concern is a distributed epistemic work and justification is collective dynamic (Bohman, 2000; Chambers, 2017; Habermas, 1996). However, empirical studies that systematically capture these interconnections are rare. Offering reasons is a practice that occurs simultaneously in distinct institutions engaging actors who are differently positioned in society and who play different roles (Mansbridge et al., 2012; Maia, 2012a, 2018a; Neblo & White, 2018). In this chapter, we examine substantive justification given by elite actors in arenas with specific goals and distinct levels of formality: public legislative hearings, mainstream media outlets, and an activist Facebook page run by more than 150 civic organisations. Political judgement is often complex in contemporary societies, encompassing competing values and regulatory requirements, opposing interests and contingencies. Offering justifications, in different ways as discussed in Chap. 4, can be conceptually distinguished and empirically operationalised at different scales, across different forums, and in a wider audience. We © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_5

65

66 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

differentiate interrelated categories of actors in these arenas, and generate controlled comparisons to capture continuing justification in claims beyond the boundary of settings. Then we observe a network of reasons that align actors across the political system. In the first part of this chapter, we explain the assumptions shaping this study and clarify how the chosen arenas have their “own logic” of functioning in different parts of the political system. Second, we will demonstrate the empirical operationalisation of this conceptual framework, focusing on substantive arguments in practices of offering reasons. We critically discuss, in the final section, implications of developing an integrated analysis of reasons and perspectives of reasoning in different places to compose a broader justificatory dynamic in the social whole.

Distributed Deliberation and Epistemic Division of Labour As discussed in Chap. 2, systemic thinking is concerned with division of labour; and interdependence and interactions between various parts with different goals. In contrast to unitary models of deliberation based on a single institution or separate environments, a systemic approach requires us to explore connections of actors in different arenas (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Habermas, 1996, 2018; Maia, 2012a; Mansbridge et al., 2012; Neblo & White, 2018). In our research, we build on the idea that political judgement is distributed among different agents (Bohman, 2000; Habermas, 1996; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017; Mansbridge et al., 2012). According to Jane Mansbridge and colleagues, “it is virtually impossible to conceive of a political system that does not divide the labours of judgement and then recombine them in various ways” (Mansbridge et al., 2012, p. 5). For instance, political representatives, economic and market agents, and experts—while being a located in different subsystems with a set of institutional arrangements based on formal and informal rules, and chain of expertise—relate to each other to process problems in a societal whole (Alexander, 1988, 1995, 1998; Maia, Arantes et al., 2017; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017; Mouzelis, 1991, 1995). In this model, political judgement is conceived as being constructed dynamically, through continuous disputes, conflicting and cooperative exchanges among distinct actors. In this light, the conception of social knowledge production and collective interpretation of problems have important implications for

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

67

deliberative politics. First, no actor or group of actors is seen to hold all the relevant social knowledge to solve complex problems in contemporary societies (Bohman, 2000; Brown, 2009, 2014; Dewey, 1927; Fischer, 2000, 2004, 2009; Habermas, 1996). James Bohman (2000, p. 50) has argued that “the advantage of the division of labour is to make each social actor dependent on the actions of many others, so that the outcome of the collective enterprise depends on the necessary actions of others that cannot be immediately controlled or predicted with certainty”. For instance, civic associations, particularly groups engaged in advocacy or aiming at educating citizens about specific causes, collect, organise and help individuals to gain access and process information (Caiani & Della Porta, 2018; Della Porta, 2006, 2013; Della Porta & Doerr, 2018; Maia, 2012b; Warren, 2001). Political parties and pressure groups typically seek to raise concerns and demands from groups of citizens and make them operationally suited to the discussion agenda in legislatures (Neblo & White, 2018; Plattner, 2019; Urbinati, 2019). Experts have a set of skills to make prognoses, test ideas and recommend courses of action in distinct policy areas—which, by its turn, also unleash moral and political controversies (Bäckstrand, 2003; Christiano, 2009, 2012; Fischer, 2000, 2004, 2009; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017). From a systemic point of view, all of these actors have the potential to bring issues of common interest to public eyes and contribute to process political judgement. A second implication of epistemic division of labour is to resize the role citizens should play in deliberative politics and the number of people capable of effectively participating in collective decision. Citizens do not need in-depth “operational knowledge” (Bohman, 2000; Brown, 2009; Dewey, 1927; Habermas, 1996); and not all of them need to develop sophisticated expertise and political skills and equally engage in public debates. In a holistic view, ordinary citizens’ concerns and views are expected to offer inputs for political parties, interest groups, civic associations, legislatures and courts (Habermas, 1996; Maia, 2018a, 2018b; Neblo & White, 2018). An ecology of civic associations, while being highly specific about the topic they choose to promote (e.g. gender or race issues, LGBTQ issues, domestic violence, people with disabilities, climate change), typically build initiatives to create critical awareness of social problems in the broader body of citizenry and exert influence or consequential impact on formal decision-making  (Maia, 2012b). Democratic conditions for

68 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

bringing particular issues or areas of experience into public debates, authenticity and democratic control are certainly crucial in these possibilities. There remains a larger question of democratic practices of competent actors and public debates as open-ended dynamics. Civic associations and groups may favour illiberal values, authoritarian and intolerant practices, such as neo-fascist groups that challenges inclusion rules, promote attacks on human rights, spread lies and misinformation (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Bruns, 2019; Cammaerts, 2021; Curato, 2020; Leiding, 2021). Illiberal interest groups and political parties entrain a catastrophic risk to reform institutions from within, transforming procedures of democratic governance itself (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2019; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). In equal measure, a collection of specialists in different policy areas may systematically confront, compete and even deny scientific claims (Bohman, 2000; Brown, 2014; Christiano, 2012; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017; Pielke, 2007). Politicisation and depoliticisation should be searched in private, public and governmental spheres (Hay et al., 2017; Maia, 2017; Wood & Flinders, 2014). Thinking in holistic terms serves as a critical reminder of the number of conditions needed for democracy and deliberative politics functioning well.

Different Arenas, Different Goals We started with the expectation that empirical operationalisation of systemic thinking should incorporate arenas located in different parts of the political system, in order to reveal division of labour and diverse functional “logics” at play (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019; Habermas, 1996, 2006, 2009; Mansbridge, 2012; Neblo & White, 2018). In our research, we focus on legislative public hearing, high quality newspapers and an activist Facebook page. These different sites, despite having dissimilar functions, provide information and reasons for wider audiences, composing an elite-­ centred flux of communication. In this chapter, we seek to shed some light on the reasoning process related to elite actors. In the following Chap. 6, we concentrate on everyday political discussions and reason-giving when citizens are exposed to information in the arenas studied in this chapter. Examining discursive dynamics within and outside arenas, including justifications offered by elite actors and broader groups of citizens alike, seems crucial to meet present challenges.

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

69

Elite Actors Arenas The settings selected in our study—legislative public hearings, news media and a network of civil society organisations in favour of adolescents’ rights—should be considered as three among the various spaces for providing information, expressing opinions and offering reasons for preference formation. Legislative hearings have the function to gather information on controversial issues, clarify choices and provide policy-making advice (Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017; Brasher, 2006). This forum takes input from “knowledgeable elites”, that is, experts, interest groups or civic organisations, in addition to elected political representatives. By definition, public hearings are expected to prepare the ground for decision-making, generating “awareness” of competing demands, balancing legal and administrative requirements and assessing practical problems. This type of discussion is supposed to entail higher rational requirements when compared to reason-giving in the news media and in social media networks. News media communication, ideally, plays the role of drawing public attention to issues of common interest and helping citizens understand the consequences of policies. Following professional routines and national cultures, journalists gather information from distinct sites and interview various social actors, usually official and authorised sources, as “knowledgeable elites” to build news (Albuquerque, 2012; Häussler, 2018; Lück et al., 2018; Maia, 2012a; Lycarião & Wozniak, 2017; Wessler, 2018). As Doris Graber (2003) notes, “the opinions of elites are featured while the views of the mainstream public are slighted; the views of ideological dissenters are largely ignored. Overall, the opinions of the mass public are treated as quaintly interesting but not necessarily consequential” (p. 145). Analysis of media material is therefore essential for capturing broader social interpretations on current issues, insofar as journalists seek to render messages and specialised discussion understandable to large audiences. Finally, civic association communication, referring to a wide range of civic entities, NGOs, social movements, usually aims at preparing information and awareness campaigns to educate citizens on specific topics (Caiani & Della Porta, 2018; Della Porta, 2006, 2013; Maia, 2012b;  Warren, 2001). When playing the role of advocacy agents, social movement organisations explicitly seek to drive reflection or decision-making in a particular direction. Although they are not deliberative at a first glance, civic associations often provide a set of arguments that can be used in other parts of the political system (Mansbridge et al., 2012; Maia, 2012b, 2014; Maia & Garcêz, 2014; Mendonça, 2016).

70 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

The three selected arenas express political elites’ voices in institutions that have different goals and perform distinct functions in the political system. We expect that reason-giving takes different forms in these arenas, but justifications supporting and criticising the law reform for lowering the age of criminal responsibility circulate across them, composing a larger justificatory dynamic. In our research, the media as a system of communication, including mainstream media and multiple platforms of digital communication, deserves special attention. When we refer to mainstream media, we mean the conglomerates and organisations of printed news, TVs, radio and corresponding digital platforms; and a set of professionals specialised in producing large-scale public communication (Gurevitch & Blumler, 1990; Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Chadwick, 2017). There are different media system models, with varying national cultures of journalism, degree of political parallelism with governing elites, and forms of market competition—all these factors shape the collective performances of journalists (Albuquerque, 2012; Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Pfetsch, 2014; Wessler, 2018). Keeping in mind the interconnected media environment, we focus on journalistic practices in this chapter, as this they are designed to collect information and organise knowledge that are not readily available to ordinary citizens (Deuze, 2005; Lück et al., 2018; Lycarião & Wozniak, 2017; Maia, 2012a, 2018a). Journalists not only disseminate information and the views of actors form a variety of areas, but they also actively participate in public debate, presenting claims and defending positions (Ferree et al., 2002; Gamson, 1992; Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a, 2018a; Strömbäck & Esser, 2014). Frequently, media professionals are seen by the public in the same position of trust in regard to other experts (Hanitzsch et al., 2011; Pfetsch, 2014). In the next chapter, we further explore direct, bidirectional and multidirectional communication (Chadwick, 2017, 2019; Ekström & Shehata, 2018; Maia, 2018a; Miller & Vaccari, 2020). We focus on opportunities of information and reasoned arguments provided by the three select arenas studied in this chapter.

Circulation of Reasons A basic premise behind the systemic thinking is that discursive exchanges occur through multiple kinds, modes and levels of discussion. As explored in Chap. 3, Jürgen Habermas (1996, p. 360) speaks in terms of “a network for communicating information and points of view (i.e. opinions

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

71

expressing affirmative or negative attitudes)” in three levels: (a) “the level of institutionalised discourse” at the centre of the political system, (b) the level of “media-based mass communication,” and (c) the level of “everyday political communication in civil society” (Habermas, 2009, p. 159). John Dryzek (2000, p. 51) emphasises the notion of competition of discourses in the public sphere for preference formation and collective outcome: “This transmission mechanism is discursive rather than electoral”. Seriously considering individuals’ spontaneous communication outside the state or decision-making institutions is relevant to treating preference as dynamic and changing. In Dryzek words, it is “important that contestation be engaged by a broad variety of competent actors” (Dryzek, 2000, p. 162). We have argued throughout this book that most actors are now forced to operate in multi-platform communication in the media interconnected environment. To provide a concrete picture about multiple levels of communication between elites’ and among ordinary citizens on matters of common concern, this chapter focuses on elite arenas: legislative hearings (arena 1), news media (arena 2) communication and civic association communication (arena 3). Political judgement is constructed dynamically, through continuous disputes, via conflicting and cooperative exchanges among distinct classes of actors that play different roles in a given political system. To apprehend discursive practices and justification as a collective process, our first research question asks what sort of actors provide reasons in each arena and whether there are conflicting views and adversarial argumentation. RQ1: What actor categories offer arguments in 1–3 arenas? Are there adversarial justifications in 1–3 arenas? What is the distribution of procon-positions in 1–3 arenas? We assumed that speakers with opinions favouring or contesting the lowering age proposal would resort to a pool of pro- and con-reasons. However, it is not clear what changes in reasoned arguments in legislatures, news stories and in civic association communication. It is not clear either if there are some sort of widely employed reasons aligning actors along settings and partisan sides. Common justification may indicate shared agreement and alignment in terms of value, interest and orientation for action coordination. Then, we put the following questions:

72 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

RQ2: What is the repertoire of pro and con justifications in 1–3 arenas? Is there prevalence of some arguments in 1–3 arenas and across them? RQ3: Is there prevalence of some arguments deployed by category of actors in 1–3 arenas and across them? Finally, we considered that public controversies, such as the disputes over the law reform at stake, are refracted into very different types of problems that affect individual and collective well-being, which are associated with ethical-political, moral, legal and pragmatic questions. The definition of problems and recommendation claims can follow different perspectives of argumentation. So, we asked: RQ4: Is some sort of argumentation perspective (pragmatic, moral-ethical political or legal) dominant in 1–3 arenas, and in partisan debate sides (pro-reduction and con-reduction)? These questions guided our research design. Below we explain our empirical operationalisation and methods used to observe correlations between settings, participants (actor categories), arguments and reasoning perspectives (Fig. 5.1).

Empirical Research How should one measure and compare reason-giving practices in legislative forums, news stories and Facebook posts? This task, while especially complex, is essential for developing a systemic approach. We compared the presence of various speaker types, the volume of pro- and con-reasons, and the distribution of arguments by each category of actor in each arena. Then, we made controlled comparisons across arenas, categories of actors and patterns of justification as a broader social whole. As explained in Chap. 4, it should be noticed that a specific argument can be expressed in multiple ways in the speech act with different linguistic structures and styles. Yet, the substantive content of the claim, that is, why x should or not be done, prevail and can be identified. To capture justification processes that could be compared in a systematic way, we built an extensive list of pro and contra arguments about the law reform for reducing the age of criminal responsibility. This list was constructed, both inductively, by reading mass media and social media material, legislative discussions on lowering the age of criminal

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

73

Fig. 5.1  Arenas and digital platforms. (Adapted from Neblo (2015))

responsibility and, and deductively, by drawing on previous studies on the age of criminal responsibility. Figure 5.2 shows the final list of arguments sorted by types of reasoning. This list was included in our coding scheme. Certainly, speaking in legislative hearings, building news information and writing Facebook messages involve complex practices of reason-giving related to settings’ distinct nature and goals that regulate participants’ expectations and performances. To produce focused, or “matched comparisons”, the first step is to collect material about the issue-specific debate (the law reform in our case) in all settings in an equivalent period of time. Reasons are expressed in varying discursive formats. The second step is to produce controlled or “contextualised comparisons” (George & Bennett, 2005; Locke & Thelen, 1998). This means explicitly, and self-­consciously,

74 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Arguments favoring the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility Argument

F1 F2 F3

F4

F5

F6

F7 F8 F9

Description

Type of argument

There is strong popular support for lowering the age of criminal responsibility. This measure would therefore respond to the majority of citizens’ will. Teenagers break the law because they know they will not be punished for their acts. Lowering the criminal age will reduce violence and save lives because teenagers are

Pragmatic

increasingly getting involved in criminal activities. There are incorrigible teenagers, so the current sanctions applied to young offenders are weak or insufficient. Politicians, elites and people in power do not want the reduction because they do not suffer from violence.

The criminal age should be reduced ("short-term measure"), but investments are required.

Adolescents above 16 years old are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. Adolescents have opportunities, but some do not take advantage of them. If teenagers enjoy civil rights, such as the right to vote and to get married at 16 years of age, they must also be punished by their unlawful behavior.

F10

Human rights protect criminals.

F11

It is necessary to apply the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” principle.

F12

There is not a maturity shift from one day to the next in adolescent development.

F13

Many agents (state, advocates) and principles (human rights) treat offenders as victims.

F14

Reducing the age of criminal responsibility does not mean revenge but justice.

F15

The severity of the crime ("heinous crimes") must be taken into account to establish the criminal age.

F16

In other countries, the criminal age is under 18 years old.

F17

Crimes must be punished regardless of the criminal's age.

Fig. 5.2  List of arguments

Moral-Ethical-Political

Legal

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

75

Arguments contesting the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility

Argument C1

Description Sending teenagers to prison will only complicate the Brazilian prison system, which is already overcrowded.

C2

In prison, the reality is cruel and it may even worsen adolescents’ behavior.

C3

The pain of the victim's loss does not justify changing the law.

C4

Most infractions committed by adolescents are less severe.

C5

Adolescents are still in development.

C6

C7

C8

C9

Type of argument

Pragmatic

If the law changes, criminals and gangs will recruit ever-younger teenagers and children. Therefore, lowering the criminal age will not reduce violence.

Moral-Ethical-Political

Investments in education and public policy are better measures to prevent adolescents from getting involved in criminal activities. Punishment is not a solution. Teenagers get involved in criminal activities because they live under unfavorable conditions such as poverty, broken families and emotional distress. It is the adults’ fault. The punishment should be severe for adults who neglect to care properly for children and adolescents’ needs.

C10

The reduction implies penal reduction for all offenses.

C11

The minimal age of criminal responsibility at 18 is an international agreement.

C12

The age of criminal responsibility is an indisputable clause in the Brazilian Constitution.

C13

Current social-educative measures applied to young offenders are sufficient. However, this system must be corrected and improved.

Legal

Fig. 5.2  (continued)

placing differences of context at the centre of the analysis. In other words, researchers should provide detailed characterisation of places and considerations about similarities and differences of the phenomenon at hand in different situations. In the attempts to assess reason-giving as social practices and broader circulation of justifications, one should pay special attention to contextual factors shaping this practice in specific environments, as discussed in Chap.

76 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

3. In our study, we compared reason-giving in 1–3 arenas, describing specific features of settings in relation to: (a) level of formality and arena goals; (b) institutional arrangements concerning reason provision opportunity, inclusion or access; and (c) style of discursive expression, interaction context and audience. It is important to stress that the contextualised comparison means more than careful selection of variables. Indeed, the effort to describe and explain the phenomena under analysis in different conditions and situations constitutes a way to look at the broader social whole. What may appear to be separated practices in different contexts, upon closer examination, can become itself as a productive strategy to look at articulations of parts in the political system. Seeking to study such articulations more holistically, we focused first on selected arena goals and levels of formality. Legislative public hearings are characterised by a high level of formality. Debates in advisory bodies are often part of larger political party disputes, mediated by political leaders and governing groups (Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Parkinson, 2006; Quirk et al., 2018). The practice of collecting inputs for building news is marked by a medium level of institutional formality. Journalists, following professional rules, are typically trained for monitoring the working of the government and consulting official sources or significant players that may affect developments of reported events (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Schudson, 2003). Lastly, voluntary associations, aiming at unleashing awareness for certain collective problems and motivating mobilisation, establish very informal types of communication with their interlocutors and audiences via social media. Second, we observed institutional arrangements for discursive opportunity, inclusion or access. Public hearings in legislative houses are highly selective. The criteria for inviting participants are based on functional credentials, reputation or leadership in a relevant area of policy-making. These discussions are often prepared by civil servants and parties in the government, pressure groups with organised interests and different civic associations (Bessette, 1994; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Quirk et al., 2018; Steiner et al., 2004). In new media organisations, journalists often seek insights from politicians and experts to obtain background information to cover public policies and interpret current issues (Albæk, 2011; Blumler & Gurevitch, 1981; Brewer & Sigelman, 2002). They select their sources routinely based on who they believe are ‘authorised speakers’ (Schudson, 2003, p. 134); and relationships are quite complex, ranging from cooperative to adversarial, based on mutual trust, cynicism or suspicion (Albæk,

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

77

2011; Fossum & Schlesinger, 2007; Page, 1996). These patterns vary between societies with distinct political systems and across different subject matters within a given society (Hanitzsch et  al., 2011; Lück et  al., 2018; Pfetsch, 2014). Voluntary associations and social movement organisations usually seek to develop their own communication and media apparatus to create a “a public voice” (Ellis, 2015; Su et al., 2018). In our case, as the Facebook Page under analysis is run by a network of more than 150 civic associations, we consider that activists have to engage in internal negotiations to define their collective political agenda, central objectives and missions. Third and finally, we considered style of discursive expression, interaction context and audience—essential elements to characterise more precisely reason-giving as a social practice that occurs in different places. In legislative public hearings, face-to-face discussions are disciplined by a set of rules and procedures, including a fixed debate agenda, moderation and time to speak (Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Fishkin, 2018; Gastil et  al., 2018; Parkinson, 2006; Quirk et al., 2018). Even under time pressure and interruptions, participants usually can fully develop their arguments. News media speeches contrast with parliamentary debates in at least two important ways. Professionals from media organisations necessarily mediated political communication (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Hauber & Motta, 2021; Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a; Wessler, 2018). A single news article can bring together voices from different actors, providing information and comments that journalists select and integrate into the overall news narrative. Second, a speaker’s contribution is usually divided into small units and inserted into a single news article or other media publications (Bennett et al., 2004; Wessler, 2008, 2018; Ferree et al., 2002); and the boundaries between the reporters’ voices and the sources’ voices are maintained at various levels (Lück et al., 2018; Lycarião & Wozniak, 2017). In turn, the communication of civic associations on digital social networks, as a Facebook Page, is highly informal and self-referential, as civic agents can directly shape their expressions for public divulgation. The aforementioned lines of comparison are just initial moves to deal with much more complex questions that may affect the offering reasons practice in the chosen places, deliberately speaking. Discussions in public hearings, for instance, can favour more influential groups in the government that define the political agenda and that conduct debates to the detriment of less powerful groups (Bessette, 1994; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005; Steiner et al., 2004). Majority parties may invite participants and

78 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

experts in line with their ideological position to gain political advantage. Public hearings can simply become a formality, that is, a means of meeting legal requirements or satisfying opposing groups (Buttny, 2010, p. 637; see also Grönlund et al., 2014; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017). The news media can produce limited coverage of important issues; and fail to provide sufficient and qualified information. Journalists necessarily need to filter the flow of communication; and they may use certain frames that reduce the relevance of the issues under discussion or systematically build biased reports to favour governing parties or certain interest groups (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Maia, 2012a;  Norris, 2000; Rinke et  al., 2013; Wessler, 2018). Finally, civic associations often select and structure information seeking to advance specific causes, change minds and exert influence in decision-­making. The do not always “go public” trying to translate problems that resonate in daily life as issues of public concern. Instead of that, they may seek to amplify support for self-regarding interests and sectarian causes (Della Porta, 2006, 2013; Maia, 2014; Warren, 2000). The notion of “formal”, “semi-formal” and “informal settings” serves us poorly, if differences of context are not considered at the centre of the analysis. To track reason-giving by different actor categories, in different settings, we have to be sensitive to the interactive logics at play and factors shaping the selected arenas; and power asymmetries related to actors categories, in order better understand political disputes and justificatory alignment that emerges among actor groups beyond places.

Methodology This research was designed to generate comparison of reason-giving practices and justification about a controversial law reform (reducing the age of criminal responsibility) in three arenas: (a) legislative public hearings, face-to-face meetings (arena 1), (b) news articles (arena 2) and (c) civic associations’ Facebook page (arena 3). To produce sample equivalence, we considered the statement as the unit of analysis in transcripts of public hearings, news stories and posts on Facebook. Claim here is defined as a speech act containing a “demand” (or justification or argument) (Steiner et al., 2004). In total, we analysed 482 claims in the main arenas (see Table 5.1). We conducted content analysis following standard coding procedures (Krippendorf, 2004; Neuendorf, 2017; Riffe et  al., 2019). A detailed description of the sample, reliability tests, methods and analysis performed,

79

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

Table 5.1  Research sample

Claims in the informative material (main arena)

Facebook page

Public hearing

38

177

News articles Total 267

482

descriptive statistics and other supplemental material are available in the appendix of Chap. 5.

The Set of Interrelated Arenas, Actors and Reasons In line with systemic thinking of complex societies and the idea of division of epistemic labour, we present the analysis of our results by (i) sequencing sites, (ii) sequencing of actors and (iii) sequencing reasons. Sequencing Settings Our first research question asked what actor categories are included in arenas 1–3, whether there are competing arguments and what is the distribution of pro and con positions in each arena. We started with a generic expectation that legislative public hearings and news stories would involve speakers mostly representing the so-called knowledgeable elites, political representatives and government agents, experts, and, to a lesser extent, civic organisations championing issues related to the law reform in question. We first examined the general composition of the speakers in each arena and our results were in this direction. Discussions in legislative hearings were composed overwhelmingly by political actors (mainly legislative but also executive and judiciary political actors), followed by experts, and to a very small extent by ordinary citizens and members of organised civil society (see Table 5.2). In spite of the greater number of short interventions by political actors, the experts’ speaking time was far greater (20 minutes on average). Comparatively, experts’ claims were dominant in this arena, and they had enough time to defend their positions and explain their arguments in detail. The news media included the largest range of actor categories, being dominated by claims issued by political actors, followed by experts, media agents, and, finally, in equitable lower proportions, ordinary citizens and members of organised civil society. It is noteworthy that mainstream media

80 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Table 5.2 Actor × arenas

Political sphere  Executive  Legislative  Judiciary Sphere of experts  Experts Sphere of civil society  Organised civil society  Ordinary citizens  Media agents  Public security agents  Victims’ family Total

Public hearings (%)

News articles (%)

Facebook page (%)

5 68 9

21 7 9

0 0 0

14

19

0

1 2 0 0 0 100 (177)

9 3 20 6 6 100 (267)

100 0 0 0 0 100 (36)

professionals gather information above all from the government and a selected set of specialised cue-givers sources, but not from the mass public (Bennett, 1990; Bennett et  al., 2007; Gaber, 2003; Simon & Xenos, 2000; Tresch, 2009). The Facebook Page from a network of civic associations, being a self-regulated communicative domain, expressed only the voice of leaders of these entities. These findings are in line with our basic assumption that the selected settings, while constituting different venues for information and facilitating distinct forms of communication, are elite discursive arenas (Häussler, 2018; Peters et al., 2008). Plural argumentation, contestation and dissent are expected in some places, but not in others. We assumed that conflicting perspectives and justifications would be observed in the legislative advisory body and in the mainstream news stories alike. In the activist Facebook page from civic associations, we expected to find a homogenous set of reasons, that is, justifications contesting the law reform. To assess the positions expressed in 1–3 arenas and whether there were conflicting views, we measured the volume of pro and con claims in each arena, and our results also correspond to our expectations. Table 5.3 shows that a plural, adversarial, discussion took place in the legislative meetings as well as in the news media coverage, since both sides of the debate issued arguments. As we supposed, the Facebook page “18 reasons to say ‘no’ to reducing the age of criminal responsibility” presented only reasons against the lowering policy, as a partisan setting.

100 0 0 0

0 75 25 0 100(2)

100 0 0 0

59 27 14 0

24 60 0 16

Alternative hypothesis: two sided

P-value = 0.0004998

100(24)

83 13 0 4

0 100 0 0

Public security officers (%)

100(54) 100(17)

24 35 4 37

Ordinary Organized Media citizens civil society agents (%) (%) (%)

100(96) 100(51) 100(25)

45 48 4 3

Ordinary Organized Political Experts citizens civil society actors (%) (%) (%) (%)

100(146) 100(25) 100(4)

62 35 0 3

Experts (%)

News articles

Note: Fisher’s Exact Test for Count Data with simulated p-value (based on 2000 replicates)

Con Pro Mixed Not identified Total

Political actors (%)

Public hearings

Table 5.3  Actors position in each arena

100(36)

100 0 0 0

Organized civil society (%)

Facebook page 5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

81

82 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

From a systemic perspective, the legislative consultant body, as “empowered spaces” (Dryzek, 2016; Niemeyer, 2014), sent a strong message against the bill proposal: most politicians, experts and spokespersons of civic associations—were against lowering the age of criminal responsibility. It is plausible to argue that the governing group, including the Labour Party (PT) then in power, openly opposed this bill proposal. For the maintenance of alliances, organisers of the hearing meetings might have selected participants favouring speakers aligned with the governing majority. In spite of disagreements, such a party coalition had more control of the agenda and the debate development. A more balanced share of arguments against and in favour of the lowering proposal was observed in the media arena in comparison to public hearings. It is noteworthy that political actors—from legislative bodies, courts, elected executives and administrative agencies—were the most frequently quoted sources, providing information and comments on the issue at stake. A substantial discrepancy of positions within the political actor group came to public view. At least two explanations are available. The “quality newspapers”, being typically addressed to an elite readership, are expected to assume a more impartial position in comparison to political sensationalist tabloids that cover issues from a specific angle (Albuquerque, 2012; Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Moreover, Brazilian mainstream journalism, like the U.S. model, tends to reinforce conflict between actors, rather than stressing compromise or agreement between the contending parts (Bennett, 1990; Entman, 2004; Norris, 2000). While giving prominence to official sources, this model of journalism is expected to promote internal diversity of reporting, by giving a voice to both sides of the story (Carragee & Roefs, 2004; Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a; Page, 1996; Rohlinger, 2007). The so-called watchdog function of journalism enables professionals to support a platform for criticising governing groups and power-holders, to keep them accountable in democratic societies. As expected, the Facebook Page, being run by a large network of social movements and advocacy entities issued only claims against the lowering policy. Without formal political power and little economic resources, the organised civil society actors’ voices are typically marginalised in empowered spaces of legislatures and in mainstream media visibility (Ferree et al., 2002; Peters et al., 2008; Häussler, 2018). While having a limited participation in formal and semi-formal settings, civic organisations typically provided sophisticated, yet accessible, knowledge to change frame-building and issue-relevance, through planned actions in the information

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

83

ecosystem (Cammaerts et  al., 2013; Della Porta, 2013; Maia,  2012b, 2014). From a systemic standpoint, social media communication is now seen as crucial for circulation of information, to exert influence on public opinion and formal decision-making. Sequencing Actor Categories In this section, we examine actor groups—that is, political actors (speakers from the legislative, executive and judiciary), experts, civic associations and media professionals—and reason-giving either supporting or contesting the lowering age of criminal responsibility law reform within and across distinct settings. Our second research question inquired into positions and justifications in claims expressed by different speaker categories in 1–3 arenas. This analysis is relevant for revealing that actors are not homogenous groups with similar political orientation, aspirations and interests. We start by comparing positions assumed in relation to the reduction proposal. In arenas 1 and 2, Political actors, that is, agents from the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies were the dominant arguers, being responsible for the highest number of justified claims in both public hearings and serving as source of citations in news stories. It should be noticed that executive power-holders had a unified position against the lowering law policy, in both arenas. In public hearings, members of the legislative, deputies and senators, despite representing party distribution in this body, were mostly in line with the central government position, in opposition to majoritarian public opinion. In the news media, in contrast, claims from the members of the legislative were mostly against the government position, and therefore, in line with majoritarian preference of the population. The literature indicates that elected politicians’ alignment with majoritarian and most influential governing groups in legislative bodies ensures political advantages and negotiated compromises in empowered spaces (Dryzek & Hendriks, 2012; Holzinger, 2004; Quirk et al., 2018; Steiner et al., 2004). Dissimilarly, the media arena enables larger discrepancy of politicians with governing groups, especially if a given policy is taken as unpopular (Albæk, 2011; Häussler, 2018). Our findings nicely support this interpretation. Another possible explanation is that journalists may regularly invite the same group of politicians to provide comments to news reporting, generating overrepresentation of certain views (Fossum & Schlesinger, 2007; Pfetsch, 2014). The members of the judiciary, as a more independent body

84 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

from governing majorities, expressed a prevalent position supporting the law reform to reduce the age of criminal responsibility in legislative hearings as well as in news stories. Congruent with the systemic perspective, our findings illustrate that political actors’ performances are in part explained by opportunities and constraints of the political game, but also in part by specificity of places, including their goals and separate audiences. Experts positioned themselves notoriously against lowering the age of criminal responsibility. In the empowered space of public hearings, experts unanimously criticised the law proposal by explicitly engaging with decision alternatives. In the mass media communication, expert sources also overwhelmingly expressed claims against this law reform. When social strife is at high, it should be noticed that experts, more often than not, are expected to take a position on moral controversial issues, and ethical on problems placed in the political agenda, rather than just providing technical inputs or communicating research results (Brown, 2014; Fischer, 2004, 2009; Maia, Laranjeira et al., 2017; Pielke, 2007). In our case, most experts presented their personal preferences. Adopting Pielke’s typology, we can say that they played the role of the “issue advocate” (Pielke, 2007), making diagnosis of political matters and seeking to lead the decisionmaker to a certain direction. Only a small portion of experts played the role of “pure scientist” or “science arbiter” (Pielke, 2007) in the media arena (Albæk, 2011, p. 338; Norris, 2000, p. 32). That is, they served as a resource of information by answering factual questions posed by journalists, but not defining what one should prefer. Civic associations, social movement organisations, NGOs and advocacy entities, exhibited a consistent unified voice against the lowering age proposal across arenas 1–3. Defending adolescents’ rights and human rights, these actors strongly opposed the lowering policy in legislative hearings, in comments for news media and in their own social media. It should be stressed the abyssal discrepancy between civic associations position and the majoritarian public opinion position. Ordinary citizens’ inputs in the public hearings and in news stories overwhelmingly supported the lowering policy. As a cautionary note, it should be kept in mind that voluntary associations and progressivist moral entrepreneurs, despite being anchored in the civil society domains, do not always reflect (or perfectly represent) the majoritarian popular preferences. On the contrary, seen as a “motor of change” (Della Porta, 2006, 2013; Honneth, 1996), social movement organisations frequently engage in collective actions to challenge hegemonic positions or conventional widespread social views (Della Porta, 2006, 2013; Fraser, 2003; Maia & Cal, 2014; Maia & Garcêz, 2014).

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

85

Finally, media professionals play an ambiguous role in public discussions, as they give voice to a variety of sources in the media arena, and also engage themselves as active arguers (Albuquerque, 2012; Ettema, 2007; Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a; Wessler, 2018). Table 5.3 shows that journalists actually played a significant role as discussion participants, being responsible for the second largest share of claims after the political actors— in a similar proportion of expert groups altogether. Interestingly, the media agents delivered the highest share of arguments without a clear position in comparison with other sources. According to rules for objective mainstream journalism and protocols for building news, journalists are not expected to insert their own thinking and judgments into news pieces (Albæk, 2011; Schudson, 2003; Weiler, 1983). Yet, journalists are relatively free to choose their sources, based on news-value criteria and professional routines. A recurring view among commentators and researchers is that journalists will just contact other sources within a given category of actors to obtain the quotes they want when they are not satisfied with the information provided by an initial speaker (Albæk, 2011, p.  339; Brewer & Sigelman, 2002). In fact, there is always the possibility that reporters select desired comments and avoid undesired remarks, or seek to obtain quotes just for confirming preferences or (preconceived) interpretations. In any case, journalists need “compensatory legitimation” (Albæk, 2011; Schudson, 2003; Weiler, 1983) derived from the authority of knowledgeable elites and other authorised sources, if they want tacitly advance interpretation in a preferred direction in news reports, rather than in commentary articles and columns. The complex, and sometimes ambiguous, role played by media professionals in the public debates can be explored in several dimensions. To get a better understanding of the “balanced” set of pro and con claims observed in journalistic coverage, we should be attentive to the fact that quality newspapers take as their mission to ensure internal diversity and an equitable share of pro- and con-positions in reporting (Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a; Schudson, 2003; Wessler, 2018). In our study, journalists, when revealing their preferences, were mostly in favour of the lowering policy. When it comes to sources, they gave a significant space in news narratives for victims of young offenders and public security agents, sources that routinely see young offenders as delinquents and brutal, and demanded urgency for passing the law reform. Moreover, news narratives significantly support the view that violence is increasing in the country—a key factor behind the popular cry for tougher policies. A large literature

86 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

indicates that news coverage of public safety matters, such as urban violence and terrorism, help feeding the perception of an imminent threat. Typically, the impact of threat perception is far greater than any physical real threat (Chan et al., 2020; Tiffen, 2006). In our case, previous studies have showed that news reporting in Brazil systematically focuses on serious infractions like homicide or rape committed by adolescents, although these represent only 13% of all offence modalities (Cal & Santos, 2015; Campos, 2009; Hauber, 2015, 2021). Up to this point, our analysis showed important variation in actors’ positions; and their discursive position vis-à-vis each other. In public controversies marked by conflicting views and moral disagreements, adversarial argumentation within and between actor categories is expected. By retaining the distinction between functional roles and further investigating actors’ discursive practices in more detail, our analysis reveals some argumentative patterns behind these positions. This analytical movement helps us to better explain political alignments in broader political judgement. Sequencing Reasons Giving justifications—as explanations about why X should or should not be done—is a central dimension in deliberative politics. Justification can be seen as a collective practice that spreads in time and space in a given social whole, once people, despite being differently located in social hierarchies and playing distinct functional roles, stand up for the same justifications (reasons they agree with). To achieve a more nuanced view of the discursive space in our research, our third question asked what are the prevalent reasons in 1–3 arenas and whether there similarity in pro- and con-justifications aligning actor groups beyond settings. To answer this question, we conducted a Fisher test taking into account all the arguments used in each arena in order to identify statistically significant differences of arguments employed by each actor category in 1–3 arenas. Our analysis focused on the three most frequent justifications issued by the actor class (political actors, experts, media professionals, civic associations and ordinary citizens). This analysis resulted in a set of 12 arguments, 4 pro and 8 counter-justifications. Then, we examined comparatively the arguments expressed in 1–3 arenas and those present in the repertoire of different groups of actors. Table 5.4, reporting the results of the Fisher Test, shows that speakers against the lowering proposal significantly incorporated greater diversity

F1 F2 F4 F7 C1 C2 C4 C6 C7 C8 C9 C11 Others Total

2 3 2 1 9 25 2 6 17 4 2 4 21 100(162)

Public hearings (%)

Political actor

12 7 18 3 4 13 1 8 3 3 10 2 17 100(156)

0 0 0 0 8 21 3 3 24 13 3 16 11 100(38)

News articles Public (%) hearings (%)

Experts

4 10 7 2 10 17 1 10 8 0 1 7 23 100(83)

News articles (%)

Table 5.4  Main arguments by actors in each arena

0 3 3 0 18 18 3 5 20 3 3 10 18 100(40)

Public hearings (%)

Civil society

0 0 0 0 16 29 10 6 10 6 6 0 16 100(31)

News articles (%) 0 0 0 0 18 18 9 0 9 18 18 0 9 100(11)

Facebook (%)

6 13 19 19 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 25 100(16)

Public hearings (%)

14 14 28 8 3 6 0 3 0 0 0 3 22 100(36)

News articles (%)

Ordinary citizens

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

87

88 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

of arguments than supporters did. When we observe the distribution of arguments by actor category, some interesting patterns emerge. First, political actors and experts employed a more varied set of arguments in comparison to civil society actors and ordinary citizens. This is not surprising since the political group, including members of the executive-­ administrative apparatus, legislative bodies, courts and political parties, often introduce problematic questions and scrutiny from their own action areas into discussion, and, therefore, generate a more varied set of justifications. Similarly, experts, by working on distinct fields related to relevant aspects of the controversies, presented various sorts of diagnostics to clarify problems and choices available on the matters under discussion, in comparison to actors from the civil sphere. A second pattern, closely related to this, is that political and expert groups projected a less integrated argumentation, that is, greater variance of justifications within the actor category, in comparison to civil organisations and citizens groups. From a systemic perspective, we can observe justifications that are mobilised by speakers to support their preferences or claims on a broader scale. In our research, some sorts of arguments entailed a remarkable binding force across actor categories, beyond functional roles and social hierarchy complexities. For example, politicians, experts and civil society organisations opposing the lowering policy expressed the same three prevalent arguments (C7, C8, C13) in 1–3 arenas. In the pro-side, only political actors and ordinary citizens shared the same two prevalent arguments (F2, F3) in 1–2 arenas. This result suggests that the employment of reasons is not arbitrary; and speakers become connected via their justifications in debate sides. Let us look at discrepancies and some counterintuitive and apparently puzzling results. Interestingly, organised civil society entities expressed a unified discursive voice—always criticising the lowering policy, converging toward three prevalent justifications (C7, C8 e C13), regardless of the communication context. In contrast, ordinary citizens expressed a unified position, always supporting the lowering age policy, conversing toward four dominant pro-arguments (F2, F3, F7 e F9) in public hearings and news media (arenas 1–2, as they had no voice in the activist arena). This fracture between organised progressist civic associations and the majority of ordinary citizens seems deeply problematic to political representativeness and for formulating administrative policies.

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

89

Types of Argumentation Finally, it should be stressed that public controversies may be related to disagreement on principles, values underlying definitions of common concerns or interests. Public debates, by definition, entail different starting points for discussions, and disagreements may unfold into different problematic fields. As discussed in the introduction of this chapter, political judgments are complex, involving values and normative requirements, and evaluation of concurring interests. It remains to be seen whether the set of reasons in our matrix of arenas are related to a particular argumentation type. Our fourth question addressed whether an argumentation type (moral-ethical, political, legal or pragmatic) prevailed in 1–3 arenas, in the repertoire of actor categories and in opposing debate sides. Based on our list of pro- and con-arguments, we mapped three types of reasoning. Table 5.5 shows that discussions in all arenas involved multifaceted aspects related legal-, ethic-moral and pragmatic problems. In spite of their distinct goals and levels of formality, we found a combination of argumentation types in legislative hearings, news stories and the Facebook page. We may say that multidimensionality of discussions and corresponding justificatory dimensions are expected in public debates, insofar as security affairs affect the entire society and evoke disagreements on binding norms and delivery of public services. In the aggregate, distinct argumentation types were observed in the repertoire of reasons issued by actor groups (political actors, experts and organised civil society spokespersons), suggesting that discussion of problems included, in a balanced way, moral-­ ethical-­political, legal and practical concerns. When we examine the repertoire of reasons on the opposing side of the debate, however, a clear difference emerges. Remarkably, those aligned against the lowering proposal stood up mostly for ethical, moral and political argumentation in all arenas. By definition, ethical-political argumentation seeks to achieve clarity on principles, values and political choices in a Table 5.5  Argumentation types × arenas

Pragmatic Moral-ethical-political Legal Total

Public hearings (%)

News articles (%)

Facebook page (%)

18.1 52.0 30.0 100

41.0 42.0 17.0 100

12.9 64.5 22.6 100

90 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

given community and moral argumentation is supposed to weight issues of justice in the symmetrical interest of all, a question that become itself part of the justification process (Habermas, 2017, pp.  200–202). In sequence, came argumentation about legal problems and then about pragmatic concerns. Conversely, pragmatic concerns and practical questions dominated argumentation advanced by speakers supporting the lowering policy. Then, appeared argumentation related to legal concerns and, lastly, moral and ethical argumentation. By asking and answering pragmatic questions, speakers typically prioritise perceived problems and exert pressure for immediate decision-making on contentious issues, rather than embarking in questioning fundamental common values or learning about political choices (Habermas, 2017, pp. 200–202). This finding is all more noteworthy because this pattern remained, and was substantial and statistically relevant, across the legislative, news media and social media arena, as the Fisher test shows.

Theoretical and Practical Considerations Discussions about controversial issues and social conflicts are played out in different arenas simultaneously. By advancing a more integrated model of analysis of reason-giving in distinct settings and by different categories of actors—this chapter makes three major contributions to research on deliberation. First, this study provides important insights into reason-giving as a binding process of judgement that transcends separated space and spreads in time. In the controversial debate, our analyses demonstrated that a chain of reasons, shared among actors, go beyond particular discursive contexts; and it illustrated how justification constitutes a collective process. By comparing arenas—addressing their main goals, rules and specific interactive contexts—our research allowed us to characterise the conditions that affect giving reason in formal, semi-formal and informal arenas. We focused on legislatures, media-based communication and activist social media—arenas that have distinct goals and levels of formality. By comparing the actors, our analysis helped us to understand the internal diversity of positioning in actors category as well as discursive performances as complementary to the interactive-situational logic of the arenas. When the variation of settings is kept in mind, we can better address the flexibility of agents’ communication and argumentation. By comparing arguments, our analysis revealed justifications that align actors through agreement and

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

91

conflicting lines across places. Instead of generating a reductive framework of actors and functional roles, we think that the systemic approach helps researchers to be aware of the complex complementarity between place and agents as concrete people with real values and interests in the social world. Second, our research maps the substantive content of reasons. This analytical strategy helped us to go beyond the analysis of specific spaces to understand the extent to which certain justifications were more widely shared across a set of arenas and categories of actors. We could also look at perspectives of reasoning and dividing lines that sustain connections and disconnections in public policy processes. The clear division seen on the sides of the debate between ethical-political reasoning and pragmatic reasoning—a pattern consistently detected on the three arenas of debate—is certainly worrying. By giving priority to moral, ethical-political argumentation, the arguers against the lowering age law centrally engaged in interrogating, contesting and arguing about basic social values, political choices and issues of justice (Habermas, 2017, pp. 200–202). On the other hand, the defenders of the lowering age law, by predominantly using pragmatic arguments, acted as if they already knew values, previously established commitments, and collective ends are not questioned (Habermas, 2017, pp. 200–202). The problem here is defined as a matter of fact; and preferences are introduced without further explanations and justifications. While arguing morally, ethically and politically opens the way for a complex understanding of values and principles to formulate choices and policy proposals, arguing pragmatically circumvents these complex concerns, presents prognoses and urges expediency of action. Third, and related, this chapter illustrates empirically difficulties for public discussion of security policies—a recurring social problem that affects many contemporary democracies. So far, what does our study tell us about this issue from a systems perspective? This chapter has focused on reasons offered by elite actors in legislatures, mainstream media reporting and civic association domains. Most politicians, experts and advocacy organisations sided with the progressive side of the debate, in favour of human rights, contesting the law for reducing the age of criminal responsibility as ineffective in improving public safety, unduly costly and unfair for affecting poor, black and most vulnerable adolescents. On the other hand, ordinary citizens generally favoured the reduction proposal, in line with the general preference of public opinion. We argue that such a disconnection between progressive elites and ordinary citizens is not an

92 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

atypical scenario. When urban violence produces increasing social anguish, the calls for tougher security policies and more restrictive laws often gain the upper hand. It is perhaps useful to insert here a note of caution. In our research, we track a pool of reasons (repertoire of pro and con arguments about issue-specific controversy) hold by actors in different arenas, but this strategy alone does not suffice to explain mechanisms that lead to preference change or the extent to which reason-giving induces self-­ reflection or reproduces common convictions that are widely shared in society. To better understand these issues, the next chapter moves the focus to online discussions by ordinary citizens on digital forums attached to the arenas analysed in this chapter. We observe citizens’ reasoning practices when participating via digital platform in legislative public hearings, commenting on selected journalistic articles on news sites and responding to posts on the Facebook page of the civic associations network. Much more research needs to be done to address the complexity of political judgement; yet, our analysis suggests that this process can be traced as a collective dynamic.

Appendix The data collection period for the three arenas was three months, from April to June 2013. A serious infraction in April gained high visibility in the media, triggering three public hearings at the Brazilian Congress following popular cry for stricter safety policies. During this period, civic associations in defence of the rights of children and adolescents promoted several mobilisations; and created the page on Facebook “18 reasons to say ‘no’ to reducing the age of criminal responsibility”, run by more than 150 civic organisations. Since we focused on a specific problem controversy, all of the actors’ speech acts were about reducing the age of criminal responsibility and related issues. By keeping a category constant (statements containing arguments), we examined reasons expressed varied in 1–3 arenas, which have (a) different goals and level of institutional formality, (b) types of participation inclusion (speaker access) and (c) conditions for discursive expression, audience and interaction context, as already explained. To produce sample equivalence, the statement was defined as the unit of analysis in transcripts of public hearings, news stories and posts on Facebook. Claim here is defined as a speech act containing a “demand”

5  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: ELITE ACTORS 

93

(or justification or argument) (Steiner et  al., 2004). The justification is conceptualised as “reasons that are given for why X should or should not be done” (Steiner, 2012, p. 269). We follow the conventional procedure described in the literature on deliberation in parliaments to identify claims in transcripts of public hearings (Steiner et al., 2004, p. 55). In the media material, we compile each direct quote or paraphrase attributed to the source in the news text. This analysis is similar to that of Facebook posts. Below, we characterise the three settings. (1) Public hearings: The Brazilian Senate held three public hearings to discuss reducing the age of criminal responsibility in the aforementioned period. Each time a participant spoke, his speech was counted. In all, there were 257 speeches. The speech was then divided into smaller units, and only claims (n = 177), parts containing arguments or justifications were codified (Steiner et al., 2004, p. 170). We analysed the claims of all speakers, including senators, experts and participants from civic organisations. The Senate hosted an online forum that allows citizens to participate online, and users can ask questions of speakers at public hearings. (2) News articles: 191 news articles published by Portal UOL over the selected period of time. We chose Portal UOL due to the large number of readers and online access. In 2013, the period of our data collection, this portal was ranked the highest news portal in terms of access, with 35.801  million monthly accesses. The articles were selected through a search engine and keyword list (Toepfl & Piwoni, 2015) related to the debate on reducing the age of criminal responsibility. In the news articles, we identify statements and classified them as direct or indirect citations (n = 267). This means that a single article can have multiple claims. Our sample only incorporated articles referring explicitly to the proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility, including reports about infractions committed by adolescents, debates about the proposal bill of law and public opinion polls. Articles without any specific reference to the reduction proposal were excluded from our sample. (3) Facebook activist page: we selected the Facebook page entitled “18 reasons to say ‘no’ to reducing the age of criminal responsibility”. This page was organised by 153 civic entities, including NGOs, social movement organisations and groups that defend the rights of children and adolescents. We collected all posts published in the selected period. Posts without any specific reference to the reduction proposal were excluded from our sample. As indicated, our unit of analysis is the statement in the post (n = 38).

94 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Categories 1. Type of arena: This category indicates the setting under analysis. They are: legislative (arena 1), news media (arena 2) or Facebook Page (arena 3) 2. The author of the claim: This category captures inclusion of social actors in specific arenas. We classify speakers according to their institutionally defined roles, following the centre-periphery model of circulation of political power by Peters (2008) and Habermas (2006, 2009) and other studies on public debates (Häussler, 2018; Ferree et  al., 2002; Maia, 2012a; Schneider, 2008; Wessler, 2018). The following categories were employed: (a) executive officers, (b) legislatures, (c) judiciary, (d) political parties, (e) security agents, (f) experts, (g) media agents, such as journalists, editors, commentators, (h) organised civil society, (i) young offenders (j) parents and relatives of victims of young offenders (k) ordinary people (l) others. 3. Argument position and the content of the argument. This category captures whether the participants present justifications in support of their views, preferences, recommendations. To achieve higher levels of measurement equivalence, we have also built an overall list of pro and contra arguments regarding the debate under scrutiny (see Fig. 5.2). This list was built in an inductive way, reading the news from the media, Facebook and the transcripts of legislative discussions on the lowering age of criminal responsibility in the past five years and, deductively, based on previous studies on this subject. The general list of arguments was then reorganised, summarised and classified after a discussion with our research team. 4. Types of reasoning. Following Habermas’ (1996) distinction on the forms of argumentation, we classify the statements as: (a) pragmatic argument (statements about appropriate means to fulfil previously established preferences and purposes); (b) ethical-political arguments (claims weighing definitions and understandings of values, beliefs or interests) and moral arguments (claims focusing on issues of justice and programmes in the equal interest of all). Following the study by Peters and colleagues (Peters et  al., 2008, p.  106; see also Maia, 2009, 2012a), our codification also included: (c) legal arguments (claims involving valid constitutional or legal norms and applicable legal precedents for specific problems and cases). Figure 5.2 shows the final list of arguments classified by types of reasoning.

CHAPTER 6

Reason-Giving across Arenas: Broader Public of Citizens

Deliberative politics is based on the idea that reasons must pass the critical scrutiny of citizens. Despite the increasing sensitivity of researchers to the relevance of everyday communicative exchanges in political systems, we still lack adequate tools to observe citizens’ discussions in relation to elite discussions. In line with the analytical framework used in the previous chapter, we resort here to the notion of “circulation” of reasons in claims (Bohman, 2007; Dryzek, 2000, 2010; Habermas, 1996, 2017) to explore the justifications offered by common citizens in parallel with those displayed in a set of elite spaces. These are important developments because only recent studies on deliberation have carried out comparative analysis of different types of forums (Esau et  al., 2017, 2020; Hendriks et  al., 2020; Himmelroos, 2017; Maia, Hauber et al., 2020). Most notably absent are the empirical analyses that bring together deliberation within the forums and the political judgement of external audiences. We designed this study to better understand the arguments that are presented inside/outside different arenas in relation to the controversial proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. By examining the reasons that circulate in legislative, mass media and activist environments, this study offers a concrete picture of justifications provided by elite actors and ordinary citizens in different circumstances of social life. Tracing the “network of reasons” across settings helps us clarify connections and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. C. M. Maia et al., The Deliberative System and Inter-Connected Media in Times of Uncertainty, The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23466-8_6

95

96 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

disconnections of justifications in elite-driven spaces of legislatures, mass media, and civic associations, and in mundane online discussions of citizens attached to these spaces. This analytical framework is relevant because one should not prematurely generalise about the role of information provision and reason-­giving for public reflection and discursive engagement. This role may well depend on context, and here the distinction between the formal, semi-formal and informal nature of settings may be salient. To capture justification processes in a more nuanced way than is currently available in the literature, we combined analysis of the deliberative procedures of online discussions and analysis of the substantive content of reasons. Our study illustrates cases where the general public expresses discontent with ruling elites and progressive social policies (Fawcett et al., 2017; Hameleers, 2019; Kaiser, 2017; Norris & Inglehart, 2019; Papathanassopoulos & Negrine, 2019). This chapter is structured in four sections. First, we explore some criticisms about the apathy and low interest of citizens in engaging in consequential political discussions and the answers provided by deliberative scholars to these questions. We argue that factors related to places, methods and resources for constructive discussions should be taken into account when observing citizen discussions. Examining the rationale in the everyday discussions of citizens in different environments of the digital landscape helps to highlight significant differences. We developed our analysis in two stages, focusing on: (1) deliberative quality of citizens’ online discussions on the e-forum platform at legislative hearings, comments on selected news and comments on a post on the Facebook page of a network of civic associations; and (2) substantive reasons and argumentative perspectives inside/outside the settings matrix. We mapped a network of reasons in settings and partisan groups, and citizens’ alignments and confrontations with elite reasoning.

Looking at Citizens as Broader Publics There is now a well-established understanding that everyday conversation is an important component in a systemic approach to deliberation (Bächtiger et  al., 2018; Maia, 2018a, 2018b; Maia & Rezende, 2016; Maia, Hauber et al., 2020; Mansbridge et al., 2012). Beyond protected environments of deliberately designed forums, however, citizens are at a profound disadvantage in terms of knowledge, voice and real opportunities to participate in debates in any direct way. As demonstrated in the

6  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: BROADER PUBLIC OF CITIZENS 

97

previous chapter, ordinary citizens typically do not have access to legislative forums or provide central informational clues to mainstream news. Formal discussions at the heart of political-administrative institutions are highly selective for elite groups. The mainstream media also employ strategies that serve to strengthen the voices of elite actors and, more often than not, push the voices of civil actors to the margins of media debates (Häussler, 2018; Maia, 2012a;  Peters et  al., 2008). In this section, we address the importance of citizen discussions in debates on controversial issues, taking into account online interactions and deliberative and nondeliberative behaviours in digital environments. Understanding these problems provides the basis for our empirical research and analytical framework explored in this chapter. Citizens’ Discussions The systemic approach emphasises that it is necessary to be aware of the complex exchanges between citizens, with regard to their preferences and values ​​on policies and issues of common interest (Curato et  al., 2019; Hendriks et al., 2020; Maia, 2017). To some extent, deliberative theory can be seen as a reaction against a long tradition in political theory that stresses citizen apathy, low level of political knowledge, and unwillingness to argue with others who hold different opinions (Converse, 1964, 1970; Brennan, 2016; Rosenberg, 2007, 2014; Schumpeter, 2005; Zaller, 1992). Deliberative scholars have refuted this account in too many ways to be summarised here. For those who agree that a lack of sufficient information and motivation should not be seen as fatal, ways of allowing people to develop thoughtful considerations and finding methods to promote reciprocal and respectful interactions remain central (Fishkin, 2003, 2009, 2018; Curato et al., 2017; Gastil et al., 2018). Here it is important to think about citizens’ capacities to learn, recognise shared needs and develop considered reflections related to the provision of opportunities, resources or incentives and deliberative capacity building. The literature on citizens’ assemblies provides several examples of successful initiatives to engage people and community groups in reasoned discussions to provide sensible recommendations for policy making (Gastil & Knoblock, 2020; Fishkin, 2003, 2009, 2018; Hendriks, 2016; Grönlund et al., 2010; Niemeyer & Jennstäl, 2018). It also provides for advancing constructive discussions among members of deeply divided groups to find mutually acceptable solutions (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2014; Caluwaerts & Ugarriza, 2012; Luskin et al., 2014; Maia, Cal et al.,

98 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

2017; Steiner et al., 2017). Our first claim in this chapter is that the right conditions (location, resources and incentives) for deliberation must be kept in perspective by looking at the types of communicative behaviours that emerge in citizen discussions in different settings. Settings—whether for face-to-face communication (Bächtiger & Hangartner, 2010; Fishkin, 2018; Gerber et al., 2016) or for virtual communication (Barberá et al., 2015; Grönlund et al., 2010; Valenzuela et al., 2012)—can be constructed to generate more or less inclusive, relatively egalitarian, well-informed discussions or mutually respectful interactions. Rather than a ‘natural behaviour’, deliberative posture adopted by the discussants also varies according to the forum designs, discussion purposes, rules and affordances on digital platforms. Online Environments Online environments, while often seen as unsuitable for deliberation, or unworthy of serious attention, can no longer be ignored. As discussed in Chap. 3, most practices are now embedded in the interconnected media environment; and people produce, consume and distribute all kinds of content (Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Chadwick, 2019; Chadwick et  al., 2018; Maia, 2018a). Citizens also establish dynamic interactions with political representatives, market agencies, experts, media agents and civic associations through digital platforms (Ekström & Shehata, 2018; Maia, 2018a; Vaccari & Chadwick, 2020). In contrast to deliberately designed forums, discussions that take place in informal online environments are often marked by gross inequalities, incivility or disrespect, misinformation, and inattention (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Rossini, 2020; Rossini & Maia, 2021; Tucker et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). In this context, a systemic approach helps to advance a more nuanced understanding of practices related to digital platform goals and interactive contexts. We have argued that the systemic approach requires examining participants’ discussions and performances in relation to the interactive-situational logic of the settings. Thus, we can add here that different digital platforms should be carefully investigated. Our second claim in this chapter is that researchers cannot extrapolate from one online site to another without taking into account a number of factors. The literature on online communication has long indicated that different access affordances, levels of anonymity/identifiability, opportunity for synchronous/asynchronous communication, presence/absence of

6  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: BROADER PUBLIC OF CITIZENS 

99

moderation, connective design, among other factors, shaping digital communication (Maia & Rezende, 2016; Maia, Hauber et al., 2020; Mitozo & Marques, 2019; Sarmento & Mendonça, 2016; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2012, 2018; Stromer-Galley, 2007). In contrast to accounts based on essential behaviours in a general “digital” environment, it is crucial to look at the goals and affordances; and expand the focus to broader social practices and varied conditions for online communication. Deliberative and Non-Deliberative Interactions Reasoned discussions, following deliberative procedures, are seen as crucial to increasing understanding of issues of common interest that affect people’s lives. Rather than looking for “deliberativeness” everywhere, we assume that proper deliberation is a rare, demanding, and difficult practice to achieve (Bächtiger & Pedrini, 2010; Habermas, 2006, 2009; Maia, 2012a; Neblo, 2015; Steiner, 2012; Warren, 2007). Still, deliberative exchanges can arise at some places or times in the flow of everyday discussions (Maia, Cal et al., 2017; Sprain & Black, 2017; Steiner et al., 2017). Assessing the degree and conditions under which deliberative communication and non-deliberative practices happen must be investigated empirically. Nor do we expect citizens’ everyday communication to typically produce responses to policy decision-making or advance effective policy recommendations. Our third claim is that communication must be conceived on a continuum of political practices, regardless of whether the investigator moves from the centre to the periphery of the political system, or vice versa, in the analysis. In our research, we look at different contexts of discussion, related to different practices. For example, government online forums aim to motivate users to provide opinions and input to policy making (Owen & Smith, 2015; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2012, 2018). In a context of abundance of information, news sites compete intensely for visibility and seek to attract the attention of readers (Ercan et al., 2019; Keane, 2013; Maia, 2012a, 2018a; Maia & Rezende, 2016). Online spaces hosted by specific interest groups, such as advocacy NGOs and social movement organisations, aim to disseminate information to promote their advocated causes, mobilising public support (Braccini et  al., 2019; Kavada, 2016; Penney, 2017; Tufekci, 2014, 2017). Understanding the differentiated online settings as part of the social whole is important to avoid undue generalisations and, consequently, to be able to apprehend the interconnection of practices.

100 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

Reason-Giving Within/Outside Forum We now move on to our research objective of investigating reason-giving at various levels. Deliberative theories assume that citizens should be motivated and able to “weigh” and “reflect” on their preferences and values in interaction with others to discuss issues of common interest (Chambers, 2017, pp. 269–270; Owen & Smith, 2015, p. 227). How citizens perceive the specific discussions to which they are exposed and offer reasons for their own positions is a particularly unexplored question. Simone Chambers has contended that “democratic deliberation is about reasoning and impact; and (…) we need to know in what sense and to what degree the masses engage in practical reasoning” (Chambers, 2012, p. 71). In the same vein, André Bächtiger and John Parkinson (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019, p. 79) have claimed that “we must not only look inside particular venues but also at how those events are being perceived from the outside; and on what basis judgements are being made by onlookers”. These scholars further contend that, “In three decades of work, deliberative democrats have barely scratched the surface of such questions” (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019, p. 79). Our analysis focuses on reasons displayed internally/externally to forums. From this standpoint, the view of citizens conceived of as different types of “public” is central in our study. One way of interpreting this scheme is to say that citizens are the outside public of legislative hearings, the public of readers of mainstream news media and the public of users of the activist Facebook Page run by a network of civic associations. As discussed in Chap. 5, these elite-driven arenas have different goals and varying levels of formality. They constitute different venues of information provision and offer a communicative infrastructure for the public to provide comments or engage in online discussions in different contexts. Rethinking Online Publics Directing our attention to wider publics in different online forums presents some challenges. From a systemic point of view, there are several discussion situations taking place simultaneously, the results of which are potentially linked. Following John Dewey’s (1927) concept, a public

6  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: BROADER PUBLIC OF CITIZENS 

101

means an undifferentiated aggregate of people who share a temporary interest or a form of joint activity. Publics are many, not only in number, but also in type and kind, as long as people establish dynamic relationships and shared interests that come to exist in the formation of collectivities. It would be inappropriate here to reassess broad debates about fluid and diverse conceptions of publics (Asen, 2003; Dewey, 1927; Splichal, 2022a). In the context of our research, users of digital forums can be seen as “publics”—that is, a set of people temporarily brought together and exposed to the same informational content in contrast to a set of individuals clearly discernible in their uniqueness. Unlike the traditional view of publics as audiences in the age of mass media, where citizens could support or reject the political agenda of elites and the political positions they were being exposed to, but not engage in public discussion, online publics, however, are highly active. The interconnected digital media environment enables dynamic interactions between different categories of actors and publics, sharing materials, offering reasons and sometimes evolving into different joint actions. It is therefore important to realise that since people are seen as active producers and co-­ producers of meaning, rather than passive audiences, the concept of online publics needs a new understanding. In the new conditions of interconnected communication in the digital landscape, dannah boyd (2011, p. 39) defines “networked publics” supported by new technologies as “(1) the space constructed through networked technologies and (2) the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and practice”. It is worth noting the persistent character of the communicative material, favouring practices of replicability, scalability and searchability (boyd, 2011; Papacharissi, 2015). Past communication and expressions can be constantly retrieved and made available to the public eye in different circumstances; and this content can be easily reproduced, mixed and remixed in different formats. These features allow for the dissemination of communication material at different scales and potentially going viral across multiple social media networks. Finally, searchability allows unstructured and chaotic materials, narratives and commentary to be indexed, tagged or articulated through the logic of algorithms. Thus, the concept of an online public is not just a terminological issue—referring to the type of language to be used, but also an issue related to explanatory problems. In interconnected, information-rich media environments, as discussed in Chap. 3, it is difficult to isolate the

102 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

boundaries of information and measure the effects of information exposure (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018; Neuman et  al., 2014). Conventional research models in the field of communication—for example, studies on “agenda-setting”, “framing”, “gatekeeping” or “indexing behaviours”, previously concerned with explaining the influence of mass communication on public opinion, impacts of selective exposure over people’s beliefs and attitudes, and the patterns of influence that shape the political agenda, need to find ways to conceive of much more complex communicative processes in the hybrid and interconnected media system. Ironically, perhaps, even with all the manifest limitations of these mass communication models in tracking complex factors that shape opinion, it would be misleading to assume that conventional concepts can be completely ignored. The general concepts behind these models provide tools, not all of them with the same importance, for the formulation of theories that need to take into account the neworked communication between the multiplicity of agents that are dedicated to the co-production and distribution of material. For example, scholars (Bimber & Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Chadwick, 2019; Papacharissi, 2015) now refer to practices of “framing” and “reframing” issues, generating current patterns of public influence in various directions. Faced with such complexity in digital environments, the need for careful and rigorous investigation of the different levels of communication should not be abandoned. Most communicative situations have a complex structure that we must look at to unravel their components. In the spirit of our systemic approach, it is useful to distinguish between different communication contexts, unpack fundamental discussion conditions and track a set of variables to build an inter-level analysis. A more detailed description of our research is provided below.

Empirical Research Following a systemic approach, our research seeks to uncover broader justification dynamics beyond individual relationships. To complement the analysis described in Chap. 5—we now seek to understand citizens’ arguments when exposed to elite communication in legislatures, to the mass media, and to communication provided by a group of civic associations. In particular, we look at the citizens’ claims and justifications reflecting on preferences, values and ​​ interests involved in the legal reform in question, in order to elucidate reason-giving inside/outside the forum.

6  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: BROADER PUBLIC OF CITIZENS 

103

The first part of this study investigates the deliberative quality of online discussions on digital platforms, which are linked to 1–3 arenas which have different goals and levels of formality. In our empirical analysis, we began our observation of citizens’ online discussions with the expectation that as we move from more formal to more informal forums, deliberativeness is less likely to be found. In the second part, to broaden the scope of our analysis, we map the substantive content of justifications and the types of reasoning in the selected settings.

Part I: The Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions in Different Contexts Given the distinct nature and goals of the settings selected in our study, we expected to find significant differences in the levels of deliberativeness of users’ online discussions of the proposed law reform. We consider the following discussion contexts of digital platforms: legislative e-participation forum (formal, platform 1), news website (semi-formal, platform 2) and a Facebook page (informal, platform 3). The starting point for our investigation is the widely perceived view that, as one approaches the institutions at the centre of the political system, discussions adhere more closely to the ideal requirements of deliberation (Boswell et al., 2016; Habermas, 2018, 2022; Himmelroos, 2017; Mansbridge, 1999). The set of assumptions related to specific procedural dimensions of deliberation in each setting is presented in our empirical analysis below. Our first hypothesis postulated that deliberative procedures in online discussion would vary as follows: H1  : The highest levels of relevance (H1a), justification (H1b), respect (H1c) and reciprocal interpersonal interactions (H1d) will be observed in discussions occurring in platform 1, whereas medium levels of these elements will be observed in platform 2 and, successively, the lowest levels in platform 3. Studies on storytelling and deliberation demonstrate that people often make references on their own personal experiences to express their needs, values and interests in everyday settings (Black, 2008; Black & Lubensky, 2013; Maia, 2014; Polletta & Lee, 2006; Sprain & Black, 2017). Hence, we expected that story-telling, a form of narrative closely related to personal experiences, would arise in the highest proportion in informal digital platforms.

104 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

H2: The highest levels of personal stories will be observed in discussions occurring in platform 3, whereas medium levels in platform 2 and, successively, the lowest levels in platform 1.

Methods Sample, Method and Measurement Techniques Data for this study comes from three online forums where ordinary citizens discussed the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. In line with the analytical framework presented in Chap. 5, we investigate users’ online comments in digital platforms attached to 1–3 arenas. This analysis includes: (1) comments in e-forum for citizen participation hosted by the Brazilian Senate, occurring simultaneously with public hearing meetings that were broadcasted live; (2) comments in news website posted hand in hand with the selected news stories on the lowering-age policy proposal; (3) and comments on posts in the Facebook Page run by the civic associations supporting adolescents’ rights. Detailed descriptions of data collection, procedure, sample, coding, and other methodological issues are presented in the Appendix of Chap. 6. The basic unit of analysis is the online comments. In total, we analysed 2564 online comments. We conducted content analysis1 following guidelines provided by online deliberation studies, based on an adapted version of DQI code scheme (Esau et al., 2017; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014, 2018; Stromer-Galley, 2007). To test our hypotheses, statistical analyses were performed using R software packages version 3.1.2. Pearson’s chi-square test showed that relations between the reported variables were significant. Rationality Concerning rationality, our first hypothesis, following previous research (Esau et  al., 2017; Esau et  al., 2020; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2012, 1  Two independent coders coded the material of the main arenas (public hearing transcripts, news articles and Facebook page posts) and four independent coders coded online comments. We followed the procedures described by Krippendorff (2004). To perform an inter-coder reliability test, we selected at random 10% of the material sample (Claims N = 48; Online comments N = 175), using Krippendorff’s Alpha protocol. No variable fell short of the minimum recommended reliability level of 0.667 (Krippendorff, 2004).

6  REASON-GIVING ACROSS ARENAS: BROADER PUBLIC OF CITIZENS 

105

2018) predicted that more relevant, topic-focused, comments (H1a) and claims back up by higher levels of justification (H1b) would emerge in legislative e-participation forum, than in news website and, lastly, in Facebook Page. The literature shows that provision of background information about the topic under scrutiny improves the quality of users’ online discussions (Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014, 2018; Stromer-Galley, 2007). Insofar as legislative e-forums provide qualified information, motivate inclusion and ask citizens to express their concerns and spell out problems affecting their communities, we expect to observe more well-informed, focused discussions, as well as more justifications to sustain claims in this platform. In addition, researchers have indicated that legislative settings and news websites are relatively better designed to unleash political discussions than Facebook (see also Rossini, 2020; Rossini & Maia, 2021; Rowe, 2015). By comparing four online settings (legislative consultant forum, news website, YouTube and Facebook), Mendonça and Amaral (2016) concluded that discussants performed better in justifying their views in legislatures. Esau and colleagues’ study also confirmed this pattern indicating more justification among users of legislative-consultant forum, in comparison to news websites and lastly Facebook users (Esau et al., 2017; Esau et al., 2020). We analysed relevance and justification dimensions separately. Our findings nicely confirmed our expectation that reason provision (H1b) would be highest in more formal settings such as hearings e-forum, news website and Facebook. Since legislative hearings, serving as a “context of justification” for instructing decision-making (Habermas, 1996, p. 307, see also Dryzek, 2016), users were exposed to adversarial discussion among experts, politicians and advocacy agents. It is therefore understandable that external onlookers employed more justified comments, even communicating in a synchronous way, when compared to news commenters and Facebook participants.2 However, our expectation regarding comments’ relevance was not confirmed. While we predicted that topic-focused comments would prevail in 2  It should be noticed that the synchronous nature of online interactions typically does not allow much time for reflection and users are less likely to articulate arguments containing several reasons in a single comment, in comparison to those interacting via a-synchronous communication (Strandberg & Berg, 2015; Strandberg & Grönlund, 2014), even though legislative online discussants performed better in terms of justification provision.

106 

R. C. M. MAIA ET AL.

more formal forums (H1a), Facebook Page presented the highest level of comments falling into this category. Pearson’s chi-square test showed that the distribution of issue-relevance among 1–3 platforms was statistically significant, X2 (2, N = 2564) = 11.87, p