Toward Inclusion in Participatory Deliberative Processes

Toward inclusion in participatory, deliberative processes - Is it possible to think of direct solutions that promote inclusiveness, exploiting non-verbal or creative forms of communication? Could this lead to enrichment in terms of inclusiveness and strengthening of deliberation? Marion Young, in the book ‘Inclusion and Democracy,’ emphasizes the need to find tools of inclusion that can break the vicious cycle that relegates actors with social and economic inequalities to the margins of political debate (Young, 2003). Her contribution, focused mainly on the study of communicative exclusion inside the part-deliberative processes, has highlighted how structural inequalities on the social and economic levels inhibit the participation of certain citizens while empowering others. Mansbridge, starting with her empirical research, emphasized how the asymmetry of communicative power could be an essential factor in social discrimination: “Speech-centered forms of decision-making may disempower those who, for class, gender, or cultural reasons, are less comfortable with public speaking or less skilled in dominant forms of discourse” (Mansbridge, 1983). The choice of the type of communicative expressions and the form to be used should be problematized and analyzed, considering the consequences it may entail in decision-making. Forms of marginalization can emerge not only in a blatant way (i.e., with the absence of specific groups within the process or the evident silencing of their interventions) but also in a more unconscious way, such as the absence of listening and reciprocity (Doerr, 2018; Steiner, 2017). The effects of this silence are reflected in the biases that emerge in democratic fora. This issue also needs to be critically addressed concerning the normative theory of deliberative democracy, starting from the critical questioning of how dialogue per se could be a glue that would overcome the limits of political delegation and provide more equitable opportunities for mutual confrontation. Recent studies show how an essential part of our communication is connected to non-verbal communication. The use of images and the emphasis on the visual and sound dimensions are part of our communication and cannot be overlooked (Mendoca, Ercan & Asenbaum, 2020). Compared to structured forums, deliberation in the public sphere involves a wider variety of communicative repertoires, including a range of non-verbal modes of expression such as symbols, images, or even silences (Couldry, 2010; Papacharissi, 2010). Non-verbal modes of expression are becoming increasingly crucial in conceiving contemporary public spheres, which inhabit multiple forms of this expression (Dahlberg, 2018). Intending to study the deliberative possibilities of non-speech, some deliberative scholars have also pointed out the shortcomings regarding current information and the need for progress on this front. To consider communication in its multidimensionality, I aim to provide new analytical tools and empirical and experimental examples of creative, not merely logocentric, possibilities in reducing communicative inequalities in assembly contexts. Specifically, considering the relational interaction that characterizes deliberative processes, I would like to understand whether communication forms belonging to the language of the senses (stage performance, body, sounds, images) can help marginal actors to feel directly more included and involved.