There are fundamental controversies over the defining elements of deliberation. While some focus on rational reason-giving as an essential element of deliberation, other scholars open up for rhetoric, storytelling and even anti-deliberative acts to contribute to "deliberative systems". To deal with this confusion and concept stretching, it is important to improve our understanding of the constitutive elements of deliberation. Our aim is to do this by scrutinizing outright provocations to determine if they can function as legitimate deliberative acts. By examining provocative artworks, including Mohammed cartoons, picturing Jesus as a homosexual, graffiti painting a subway car, and faking a psychosis, we argue that seemingly anti-deliberative provocations can be deliberative, if they contain elements of serious dialogue. It illustrates how provocations can be deliberative by assessing it as part of a social exchange in which, in addition to reason-giving, openness and respectful conduct are given a more prominent position than hitherto.
