This study combines empirical political communication research models with theoretical accounts provided by the theory of communicative action to expand the understanding of how communication matters for democratic political functioning, particularly under conditions of social instability. Building on the Habermasian distinction between strategic orientations versus understanding orientations in conversation, the author explores the role of conversation orientations as antecedents to political engagement. Examination of conversation orientations in Colombia, a society characterized by social conflict, provides evidence of the democratic benefits of orientations toward reaching understanding and the deleterious effects of strategic orientations for political involvement, associational membership, and ultimately participation, as well as the importance of including conversation orientations as explanatory factors in models that seek to explain political involvement. These findings speak to the potential for communicative rationality to transcend the use of force and bring about action coordination based on understanding in communities experiencing civil strife.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 847-891.
3.
Ball-Rokeach, S.J., Kim, Y.C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392-428.
4.
Bender, T. (1978). Community and social change in America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
5.
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & McPhee, W.N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Blau, P.M., & Schwartz, J.E. (1984). Crosscutting social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
7.
Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York : Wiley.
9.
Delli-Carpini, M.X. (1997). The impact of the "money-politics" citizen assemblies on assembly participants. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts.
10.
Delli-Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., & Jacobs, L.R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.
11.
Delli-Carpini, M.X., & Keeter S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Dewey, J. (1988). Human nature and conduct. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1922)
13.
Fischer, C.S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Fishkin, J.S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion & democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Fishkin, J. (1999). Toward a deliberative democracy: Experimenting with an ideal. In S. Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 279-90). State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.
16.
Friedland, L.W. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Towards a theory of communicatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28, 358-391.
17.
Friedland, L.W., & Shah, D.V. (2005). Communication and community. In S. Dunwoody, L. Becker, G. Kosicki, & D. McLeod (Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18.
Gastil, J., & Dillard, J.P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16, 3-23.
19.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
20.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
21.
Habermas, J. (1989). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston : Beacon Press.
22.
Hayes, A.F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: American's beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P.A., Dalton, R.J., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1025-1054.
25.
Joas, H., & Beckert, J. (2002). A theory of action: Pragmatism and the creativity of action. Transactional Viewpoints, 1, 410-413.
26.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R.O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication , 16, 361-385.
27.
Kim, Y.C., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (2006). Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory, 16, 173-197.
28.
Kwak, N., Williams, A.E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, 32, 87-111.
29.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice. New York : Columbia University Press.
30.
Leighley, J.E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 459-475.
31.
Lipset, S.M. (1981). Political man. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1960)
32.
Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain . British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455-487.
33.
Mansbridge, J.J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation . Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
35.
McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D., Moy, P., Horowitz, E.M., Holbert, R.L., Zhang, W., et al. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
36.
McLeod, J.M., Sotirovic, M., & Holbert, R.L. (1998). Values as sociotropic judgments influencing communication patterns. Communication Research, 25, 453-480.
37.
McLeod, J.M., Zubric, J., Keum, H., Deshpande, S., Cho, J., Stein, S., et al. (2001, August). Reflecting and connecting: Testing a communication mediation model of civic participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
38.
Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision-Making, Deliberation and Participation , 6, 151-193.
39.
Mendelberg, T., & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and public deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 169-191.
40.
Milbrath, L. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?Chicago: Rand McNally.
41.
Miller, G.R., Boster, F.J., Roloff, M.E., & Siebold, D.R. (1987). MBRS rekindled: Some thoughts on compliance gaining in interpersonal settings. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 89-116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23, 443-460.
43.
Muñoz, J., Arturo, J., Bromberg, P., & Moncada, R. (2003). Refelexiones sobre cultura ciudadana en Bogotá [Reflections on citizen culture in Bogota]. Bogota, Colombia: Observatorio de Cultura Urbana.
44.
Mutz, D. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126.
45.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
Page, B.I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Pizano, L. (2003). Bogotá y el cambio: Percepciones sobre la ciudad y la ciudadanía [Bogota and change: Perceptions on the city and the citizenship] . Bogotá, Colombia: IEPRI-CESO.
48.
Price, V., Cappella, J.N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
49.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
50.
Rojas, H., Shah, D.V., Cho, J., Schmierbach, M., Keum, H., & Gil-De-Zuñiga, H. (2005). Media dialogue: Perceiving and addressing community problems. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 93-110.
51.
Rotolo, T. (2000). Town heterogeneity and affiliation: A multilevel analysis of voluntary association membership. Sociological Perspectives, 43, 271-289.
52.
Sanders, L.M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347-376.
53.
Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 300-324.
54.
Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E.C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21, 315-338.
55.
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy . Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 297-309.
56.
Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., & Yoon, S.H. (2001). Communication, context and community: An exploration of print, broadcast and Internet influences. Communication Research, 28, 464-506.
57.
Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J.M. (2001). Values, communication behavior and political participation. Political Communication, 18, 273-300.
58.
Sulkin, T., & Simon, A.F. (2001). Habermas in the lab: A study of deliberation in an experimental setting. Political Psychology, 22, 809-826.
59.
Tingsten, H. (1937). Political behavior: Studies in election statistics . London: P. S. King.
60.
Varughese, G., & Ostrom, E. (2001). The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: Some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development, 19, 747-765.
61.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
62.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Walsh, K.C. (2003). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64.
Wellman, B. (1982). Studying personal communities. In P. V. Mardsen & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 61-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
65.
Wellman, B. (1988). The community question re-evaluated. In M. P. Smith (Ed.), Power, community and the city (pp. 81-107). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
66.
Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An introduction. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Global village: Life in contemporary communities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
67.
Wellman, B., Carrington, P.J., & Hall A. (1988). Networks as personal communities. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 130-184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Wuthnow, R. (1994). Sharing the journey: Support groups and America's new quest for community. New York: Free Press.
69.
Wyatt, R.O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50, 71-92.
