Abstract
Deliberative democracy theorists argue that discussions involving deliberative talk not only increase decision-making quality, but also nurture participant sense of citizenship. Although these theorists have identified the benefits of deliberative talk, their explanations for why deliberations in real world tend to shift between deliberative and adversarial styles are insufficient. Existing explanations focus on the importance of creating public spheres and how such spheres encourage deliberative talk. While these explanations remind us of the importance of objective conditions for establishing ideal deliberation, they overemphasize the importance of objective conditions for objective discussions and neglect the social construction aspects of deliberation. Due to this tendency, existing research cannot explain the variation of talking styles in practical deliberations. To address this theoretical gap, I argue that public spheres are interstitial and multilayered social networks. To make such discussions possible, participants must highlight one relation and suppress other alternative relations to guide the discussion process. Using the 2004 Surrogate Motherhood Consensus Conference as a case study, I argue that the creation of, maintenance of, and shifts in talking styles in public deliberations are social constructions. When participants identify a discussion as one between friends, principles such as equality, mutual respect, reasoning, and seeking the common good are highlighted. In these scenarios, participants use a deliberative style, but when they identify a discussion as one between adversaries, self-interest protection becomes the dominant goal, and an adversarial style emerges. Underpinning relations may change due to participant interaction, resulting in a shift in talking style. I also apply the concept of social skill to articulate how participants enact and suppress social relations, thereby reshaping a discussion. I identify five social skills that are important for defining and redefining deliberation: motivation, conversational skills, cultural resonance, agenda-setting capacity, and the capacity to seize timing.