Why Inequalities Persist in Public Deliberation: Five Mechanisms of Marginalization

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that reflective “meta-deliberation,” or discussions about how discussions proceed, can help to address patterns of marginalization. This article suggests, however, that moving to a meta level is not in itself a solution, since it may easily bring along such patterns. Inequalities persist through specific mechanisms that may be present in both ordinary deliberation and meta-deliberation. We explore such mechanisms empirically, by focusing on experiences of people that were excluded from discussions to which they were uniquely qualified to contribute. Our case is the 2013 Stockholm riots, and our interviewees are people who live, work, and engage in local civil society groups in the affected neighborhoods. These interviews helped us identify five mechanisms that affect a society’s capacity for reflective uptake in both ordinary deliberation and meta-deliberation: (1) imposition of preexisting narratives, (2) inclusion of locally dominant actors, (3) discursive distancing, (4), reliance on social markers, and (5) paternalistic conflict avoidance.