Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 137–151 | Cite as

Listening in polarised controversies: a study of listening practices in the public sphere

  • Carolyn M. HendriksEmail author
  • Selen A. Ercan
  • Sonya Duus
Research Note

Abstract

Listening is an important feature of policy making and democratic politics. Yet in an era of increased polarisation the willingness and capacity of citizens to listen to each other, especially those they disagree with, is under strain. Drawing insights from a divisive community conflict over proposed coal seam gas development in regional Australia, this article examines how citizens listen to each other in a polarised controversy. The analysis identifies four different listening practices that citizens enact in a polarised public sphere, including (1) enclave listening between like-minded citizens; (2) alliance listening across different enclaves; (3) adversarial listening between citizens on opposing sides of the debate to monitor opponents; and (4) transformative listening where citizens listen selectively to other community members with the intention of changing their views. The article argues that all four listening practices fulfil important democratic functions in polarised debates such as enhancing the connective, reflective and communicative capacity of the public sphere. Notwithstanding these democratic contributions, under polarised conditions participatory interventions may be required to enhance the prospects of listening across difference.

Keywords

Listening Polarisation Democratic politics Community conflict Citizen engagement Unconventional gas Democracy Energy Public communication Political communication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For their comments and suggestions on the previous versions of this paper, we would like to thank John S. Drzyek, Gerry Stoker and participants at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 29 August–1 September 2017. The research in this paper is funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Grant No. DP150103615.

References

  1. AIATSIS. (n.d.). Gamilaroi. https://aiatsis.gov.au/languages/gamilaroi. Accessed May 11, 2018.
  2. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bassel, L. (2017). The politics of listening: Possibilities and challenges for democratic life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship (1st ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Calder, G. (2011). Democracy and listening. In M. Crumplin (Ed.), Problems of democracy: Language and speaking (pp. 125–135). Oxford: Inter-disciplinary Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, G. (2017). CSG’s last stand? In Narrabri everyone has a stake in the farming v mining fight. The Guardian, 23 May. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/23/csg-last-stand-narrabri-farming-mining-fight. Accessed May 24, 2017.
  8. Coles, R. (2004). Moving democracy: Industrial areas foundation social movements and the political arts of listening, traveling, and tabling. Political Theory, 32(5), 678–705.Google Scholar
  9. Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., & Lacey, J. (2015). Strange bedfellows or an aligning of values? Exploration of stakeholder values in an alliance of concerned citizens against coal seam gas mining. Land Use Policy, 42, 392–399.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.014.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4), 525–535.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903003270.Google Scholar
  11. Denman-Cleaver, T. (2013). Listen here: The role of narrative and performance dialogue in enabling empathy. https://openlab.ncl.ac.uk/empathy/files/2013/11/Denman_Cleaver.pdf.
  12. Dobson, A. (2012). Listening: The new democratic deficit. Political Studies, 60(4), 843–859.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00944.x.Google Scholar
  13. Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dreher, T. (2009). Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice. Continuum, 23(4), 445–458.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903015712.Google Scholar
  15. Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018). No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325.Google Scholar
  16. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ercan, S. A. (2017). From polarisation to pluralisation: A deliberative approach to illiberal cultures. International Political Science Review, 38(1), 114–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115619465.Google Scholar
  19. Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Dryzek, J. S. (2018). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy and Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318x15200933925405.Google Scholar
  20. Forester, J. (1988). Planning in the face of power. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37(4), 995–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hendriks, C. M., Duus, S., & Ercan, S. A. (2016). Performing politics on social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 1102–1125.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1196967.Google Scholar
  26. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lacey, K. (2013). Listening publics: The politics and experience of listening in the media age (1st ed.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  28. Ladd, A. E. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impacts from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the Haynesville Shale. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28(2), 56–89.Google Scholar
  29. Lindell, M., Bächtiger, A., Grönlund, K., Herne, K., Setälä, M., & Wyss, D. (2017). What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 23–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12162.Google Scholar
  30. Lubbers, E. (2015). Undercover research: Corporate and police spying on activists. An introduction to activist intelligence as a new field of study. Surveillance and Society; Newcastle upon Tyne, 13(3/4), 338–353.Google Scholar
  31. Macnamara, J. (2017). Creating a “Democracy for everyone”: Strategies for increasing listening and engagement by government. Ultimo: The London School of Economics and Political Science and University of Technology Sydney.Google Scholar
  32. Mansbridge, J., & Latura, A. (2016). The polarization crisis in the United States and the future of listening. In T. Norris (Ed.), Strong democracy in crisis: Promise or peril? (pp. 29–54). London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  33. Metze, T. (2014). Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(1), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.941462.Google Scholar
  34. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (2017). [Media release] Community views on Narrabri Gas Project to be addressed. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/News/2017/Community-views-on-Narrabri-Gas-Project-to-be-addressed. Accessed June 21, 2017.
  36. Pfetsch, B. (2018). Dissonant and disconnected public spheres as challenge for political communication research. Javnost—The Public, 25(1–2), 59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1423942.Google Scholar
  37. Potter, B. (2014, June 28). Fractured: Coal seam gas and the battle for the Pilliga. The Australian Financial Review, p. 53.Google Scholar
  38. Ransan-Cooper, H., Ercan, S. A., & Duus, S. (2018). When anger meets joy: How emotions mobilise and sustain the anti-coal seam gas movement in regional Australia. Social Movement Studies, 17(6), 635–657.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1515624.Google Scholar
  39. Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002.Google Scholar
  40. Schultz, K., & McGinn, K. C. (2013). “No one cares about this community more than us”: The role of listening, participation, and trust in a small urban district. Urban Education, 48(6), 767–797.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912462709.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Simmons, R. (2011). Leadership and listening: The reception of user voice in today’s public services. Social Policy and Administration, 45(5), 539–568.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00790.x.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Strickler, R. (2017). Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Political Research Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917721371.Google Scholar
  45. Stroud, N. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.Google Scholar
  46. Suiter, J. (2018). Deliberation in action: Ireland’s abortion referendum. Political Insight, 9(3), 30–32.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041905818796576.Google Scholar
  47. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Reprint edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. The Wilderness Society. (2013). Media Release: North West Alliance grows, new groups join to protect the region. 14 May. http://ccag.org.au/csg/north-west-alliance-grows-new-groups-join-to-protect-the-region/#sthash.1tvlI5dN.dpuf.
  49. Victorian Women’s Trust. (2007). Our water mark: Australians making a difference in water reform. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Women’s Trust. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/51172642.
  50. Vincent, E., & Neale. T. (eds.) (2016). Unstable relations: Indigenous people and environmentalism in contemporary Australia. UWA Publishing. https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/unstable-relations-indigenous-people-and-environmentalism-in-contemporary-australia. Accessed July 11, 2017.
  51. Vromen, A., Xenos, M. A., & Loader, B. (2015). Young people, social media and connective action: From organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(1), 80–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.933198.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, A., & McCrea, R. (2017). Community wellbeing and local attitudes to coal seam gas development. Social baseline assessment: Narrabri project. CSIRO report. CSIRO Australia.Google Scholar
  53. Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120–135). Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crawford School of Public PolicyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global GovernanceUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations