Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:47:47.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Post-Totalitarian Values in Russia through Public Deliberation Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Sheri Frost  and
Denis Makarov
Sheri Frost
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Denis Makarov
Affiliation:
Moscow State Pedagogical University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Public Deliberation Methodology (PDM) developed from activities sponsored by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, which engages in research to enhance the practice of politics. Politics, generally understood, encompasses public activities that help create the kind of communities, the kind of country, and the kind of world order where people are interested and involved in governing and strengthening civil society.

PDM establishes an environment for interaction and exchange of ideas about improving the quality of political participation. Deliberative issues forums, which are the center-piece of PDM, are designed to help citizens act on common problems after making joint decisions. The forums employ a particular kind of discourse called “deliberation” or “deliberative dialogue.” Deliberation prompts collective cognitive reasoning by discouraging self-centered thinking and encouraging the reaching of shared and reflective judgments.

By engaging in deliberative dialogue, participants move beyond the limits of partisan politics and the simple airing of grievances. In a deliberative issues forum, people come together to talk through specific issues with the help of a moderator and an issue-specific guide. The guide presents options for resolving selected issues and outlines the pros and cons of each course of action in terms of its personal value. The tension created by being made to choose one of many viable options leads to deliberation and civic learning.

In this article we describe a PDM experiment sponsored by the political science department of Moscow State Pedagogical University and the Foundation for the Development of Civic Culture.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 775 - 781
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors are solely responsible for any errors. The research is ongoing and is being sponsored by the Foundation for the Development of Civic Culture, Russia.

References

Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sydney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronowitz, Stanley, and Giroux, Henry. 1985. Education under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate over Schooling. London: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brzezinski, Zbigniew K. 1962. Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1992. “The Problem of Civic Competence.” Journal of Democracy 3(4): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 1991. “Toward a Feminist Conception of Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24(September): 501–04.Google Scholar
Fainsod, Merle. 1963. How Russia is Ruled. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, Paulo. 1973. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Giroux, Henry. 1997. Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Leslie I. 1991. “Power and Citizenship in a Democratic Society.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24(September): 495–98.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, Peter. 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1974. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petro, Nicolai N. 1995. The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rimmerman, Craig A. 1991. “Democracy and Critical Education for Citizenship.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24(September): 492–95.Google Scholar
White, Stephen. 1979. Political Culture and Soviet Politics. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yankelovich, Daniel. 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, W. 1995. “Synoptic Thinking and Political Culture in Post-Soviet Russia.” Slavic Review 54(3): 630–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar