Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:3 (2019) ► pp.441–462

Varieties and effects of emotional content in public deliberation

A comparative analysis of advocate arguments at a citizens’ initiative review

ORCID logo | Kettering Foundation
| Saint Petersburg State University
| Simon Fraser University
| Colorado State University

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is a deliberative process that has been used in the United States to involve panels of citizens in producing balanced and easily understandable accounts of proposed ballot measures and their potential effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the CIR process is shaped by evaluative framing in which the rational component cannot be clearly separated from the emotive base of assigning responsibility. We analyze the argumentative dynamic of advocates’ presentations during the 2010 CIR on Measure 73 and discuss emotional claims as products of narrative structures that define problem situations. We explore how the distinction between manipulative and valid emotional claims within the context of public deliberation can be made with the help of three categories of analysis: Themes, Ideals, and Scenarios.

Keywords: public deliberation, emotion, values, Citizens’ Initiative Review, scenarios, narrative, coherence, discourse analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Analytical model: Themes, ideals and scenarios
  • 3.Advocates, panelists, researchers and the problem of emotional claims
    • 3.1Normative and ideologically specific values in the CIR on mandatory sentencing
    • 3.2Models of problem situations and solution arguments in the CIR on mandatory sentencing
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 19 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14013.luk
References
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, and Knobloch, Katherine
2010 Official 2010 CIR Evaluation Report Given to Oregon Legislature on December 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Robert Richards, and Katherine Knobloch
2014 “Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections.” International Journal of Communication 81: 62–89.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul
1990 “Modularity, and the Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotion.” Biology and Philosophy 51: 175–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jost, John, and David Amodio
2012 “Political Ideology as Motivated Social Cognition: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence.” Motivation and Emotion 36(1):55–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of. Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Knobloch, Katherine, John Gastil, and Tyrone Reitman
2015 “Connecting Micro-Deliberation to Electoral Decision Making: Institutionalizing the Oregon CIR.” Deliberation: Values, Processes, Institutions ed. by Anna Przybylska. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Knobloch, Katherine, John Gastil, Robert Richards, and Tracy Feller
2013 Official 2012 CIR Evaluation Report for the Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał
2010 The Discursive Construction of European Identities. A Multi-Level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
2004 Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
2008 The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard
1991 Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mameli, Matteo
2004 “The Role of Emotions in Ecological and Practical Rationality.” Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality, ed. by Dylan Evans and Pierre Cruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, Karl
1949 Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marcus, George
2002 The Sentimental Citizen. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
McShea, Robert, and Daniel McShea
1999 “Biology and Value Theory.” Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, ed. by Jane Maienschein and Michael Ruse, 307–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milgram, Elijah
2005 Ethics Done Right: Practical Reasoning as a Foundation for Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modell, Arnold
2003 Imagination and the Meaningful Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas
2004 Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Political Metaphor Analysis. Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin
2014 “Argumentation Analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach. A Methodological Framework.” Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 67–96. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
2001 Discourse of Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert
2012 “Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review 2010 Measure.” Participedia ([URL])
von Scheve, Christian
2013 Emotion and Social Structures. The Affective Foundations of Social Order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017 “A Social Relational Account of Affect.” European Journal of Social Theory 21(1):39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Sousa, Ronald
2008 “Against Emotional Modularity.” The Modularity of Emotions, ed. by Christine Tappolet and Luc Faucher, 29–50. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Spezio, Michael, and Ralph Adolphs
2007 “Emotional Processing and Political Judgment: Toward Integrating Political Psychology and Decision Neuroscience.” The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, ed. by George E. Marcus et al. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spottswood, Mark
2014 “Emotional Fact-Finding.” Kansas Law Review 631: 41–101.Google Scholar
Sripada, Chandra, and Stephen Stitch
2004 “Evolution, Culture and the Irrationality of the Emotions.” Emotion, Evolution and Rationality, ed. by Dylan Evans and Pierre Cruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, Sergio
2003 “Accidie, Evaluation, and Motivation.” Weakness of Will and Practical Irrationality, ed. by Sarah Strout and Christine Tappolet, 147–171. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
1984 An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
2014 Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2010 Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Drury, Sara A. Mehltretter, Stephen Elstub, Oliver Escobar & Jennifer Roberts
2021. Deliberative Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms. Journal of Deliberative Democracy 17:2 DOI logo
Johnson, Genevieve Fuji, Michael E. Morrell & Laura W. Black
2019. Emotions and Deliberation in the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Social Science Quarterly 100:6 ► pp. 2168 ff. DOI logo
Lukianova, Ekaterina & Timothy Steffensmeier
2020. “Well, in the case of my mom…”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:3 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Lukianova, Ekaterina & Igor Tolochin
2022. Citizens in Search of Facts: A Case Study from the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Measure 82. Social Epistemology 36:2 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.