Settling a public controversy by means of a reasonable compromise
Settling a public controversy by means of a reasonable compromise
Jan Albert van Laar
1. Introduction[1]
Compromises have a questionable reputation, both in social and in personal life (Benjamin 1990; Margalit 2010). But not all disagreements allow of a substantial resolution, even if open-minded participants seriously attempt to convince one another. When the disagreement concerns action or policy, it can be useful to examine whether a well-reasoned compromise would be feasible. With the educational method Middle Ground, participants deliberate in an attempt to develop a reasonable compromise that settles a public controversy.
The method adds to the existing range of educational resources for students (high school and post-secondary education). Different from many critical thinking resources (e.g., Fisher 2011), reasoning assessment and critical dispositions are encouraged within the setting of a structured conversation. Different from debate or discussion-oriented education (e.g., Kuhn 2005; Hess 2009), Middle Ground targets specifically the cooperative exchange of reasons aimed at a reasonable compromise. In our view, young people should develop a point of view about the virtues and vices of compromises, and develop the skills and attitudes for construing, what they conceive of as, second-best yet socially optimal outcomes (Gutmann and Thompson 2012).
2. Scholarly background
Inspired by the deliberative shift in political philosophy (Elster 1995; Habermas 1996; Rawls 2005) various practical procedures for opinion formation and deliberative decision making have been developed, such as deliberative polls or town hall meetings (Fung 2003; Fishkin 2009). Middle Ground also incites deliberation, yet with a twist. It employs deliberative techniques to enable participants to negotiate a compromise agreement in a situation where they are unable to reach a genuine consensus, and to do so in a maximally transparent and non-manipulative way. In this way, it builds on a recent trend to study legitimate policy making in deliberative negotiation (see: Mansbridge et al. 2010; Steiner et al. 2004; Weinstock 2013; Wendt 2016). Middle Ground is tailor-made for issues that generate widely divergent opinions and feelings: gender quotas in business, corrective referenda, head scarves at university, the EU-Turkey refugee deal, but also the distribution of tasks in a group assignment, or the apportioning of a budget. Going through the procedure provides students with opportunities to discuss the quality of the result, to reflect on the process, and to draw general lessons about negotiation and compromise.
3. General design of the method
Before the three-step procedure starts, the moderator (e.g., teacher) sketches a (possibly) fictive scenario regarding a particular public controversy that pressures the participants to work towards a compromise. For example, they are supposed to be the members of a committee or board that must reach an agreement on a solution to the