deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Deliberation, Storytelling, andDialogic Moments

Laura W. Black

School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701

Dialogue theory promotes communication practices that help groups understand and

productively manage their differences. Yet, by conceptualizing dialogue as a distinct

way of communicating, scholars tend to overlook how dialogue can co-occur with other

ways groups deal with difference. This conceptual separation can also limit groups’

abilities to see the potential for dialogue while they are engaged in discussion. This

essay argues that personal storytelling can be a bridge between dialogue and discussion

by inviting group members to experience dialogic moments in the midst of deliberative

conversation. Stories invite dialogic moments because they help group members negoti-

ate the tension of self–other. This negotiation occurs because through telling and

responding to personal stories, group members craft their identities and take on others’

perspectives. This argument is illustrated through the analysis of a storytelling interac-

tion that occurred in an online deliberative group discussing how to rebuild the former

World Trade Center site after its destruction on September 11, 2001. Conceptualizing

storytelling as an invitation for dialogic moments has implications for dialogue theory,

research, and practice.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.x

Dialogue is a way that groups can constructively deal with moral and culturaldifferences. Organizations such as the Public Conversations Project (Chasinet al., 1996; Gergen, McNamee, & Barrett, 2002; Herzig, 1998), the Public Dialogue

Consortium (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Pearce & Pearce, 2000), and many othershave been immensely successful in enabling groups of people with deeply different

worldviews to communicate together to improve their understanding of eachother and the issues they face. But, many times, groups that are dealing with

differences engage in communication that could be characterized as nondialogic,such as discussion, debate, or deliberation. What is not as well understood is how

dialogue relates to these other types of group communication and how, if at all,groups engaged in those types of communication might experience moments of

dialogue.

Corresponding author: Laura W. Black; e-mail: [email protected]

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

Communication Theory 18 (2008) 93–116 ª 2008 International Communication Association 93

Buber’s (1965, 1970, 1998) contrast between dialogue and monologue is at theheart of many communication theorists’ treatments of dialogue (e.g., Arnett, 1986;

Black, 2005; Cissna & Anderson, 1998; Hyde & Bineham, 2000; Stewart, 1978;Stewart & Zediker, 2000). This contrast leads to conceptualizations of dialogue that

Stewart and Zediker have called ‘‘prescriptive’’ in that dialogue is defined, in part, bycontrasting it with forms of communication that are seen as more monologic andadversarial, such as debate (Chasin et al., 1996; Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Herzig, 1998;

Hyde & Bineham, 2000) or discussion (Barge, 2002; Bohm, 1996; Isaacs, 1999).As Barge (2002) notes, small group discussion can be understood as a type of

communication that emphasizes critical thinking, evaluation of ideas, analysis ofevidence, and decision making. In the public realm, the model of discussion involves

groups of citizens talking together, listening closely to all the available evidence, andrationally analyzing the evidence in order to form their opinions and come to the

best decision possible (Bormann, 1996). The process of group discussion has a longhistory in the study of communication and has been the foundation of many citizendiscussion forums (for a review, see Gastil & Keith, 2005).

Successful decision-making discussions necessitate some level of disagreement(Janis, 1983). However, many scholars advocate dialogue as a more ethical and

constructive way for group members to navigate their differences in organizational(Deetz & Simpson, 2004; Isaacs, 1999; Kellet, 1999) and public (Cissna & Anderson,

2002; Gergen et al., 2002; Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Pearce & Pearce, 2000) realms.Dialogue’s emphasis on multivocality, open-endedness, human connection, and the

co-creation of meaning allows group members to explore more fully the complexitiesof other people’s commitments and perspectives as well as their own. Although

aspects of emotion, reason, and values are present in all communication, dialoguetheory emphasizes how these aspects interrelate much more explicitly than doesdiscussion.

But, conceiving of discussion and dialogue as mutually exclusive opposites over-simplifies. As Barge (2002) maintains, although theoretical distinctions between

adversarial and dialogic ways of communication are generally clear, the correspond-ing practices of communication as they occur in actual groups are much more

mixed.

The question is not simply when to use discussion or dialogue but how to

manage discussion and dialogic forms of talk within interactional episodes.Applying recent communication scholarship on dialectical theory . . . the choice

is not whether to use discussion or dialogue in group conversation but, rather,how to manage simultaneously these conversational norms. (Barge, 2002,

p. 174, emphasis added)

The conceptual distinction between dialogue and discussion is useful to help groups

experience and understand the nature of dialogue. However, it can also be limitingbecause it can lead scholars and practitioners to partition dialogue away from every-

day interaction and set it aside as only possible in, and appropriate for, certain kinds

Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments L. W. Black

94 Communication Theory 18 (2008) 93–116 ª 2008 International Communication Association

of situations (cf. Barge & Little, 2002; Deetz & Simpson, 2004). Dialogue scholarswould benefit from a better conceptualization of how dialogue interrelates with

other ways of communicating, such as discussion.One place to address this concern is in the realm of public deliberation. Although

deliberation has its theoretical roots in rational decision making (cf. Cohen, 1996,1997; Habermas, 1996), many deliberative scholars are attempting to enlarge theconcept to incorporate dialogue into deliberative theory and practice (Barge, 2002;

Bohman, 1995; Burkhalter, Gastil, & Kelshaw, 2002; Gutmann & Thompson, 1995;Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997). Despite this attention to dialogue, deliberative scholars

seem to lack a clear understanding of how dialogue can and should be incorporatedinto group deliberation. For example, some deliberative scholars advocate dialogue

to help groups address moral disagreement (e.g., Bohman, 1995) but do not clearlyarticulate what they mean by dialogue. Other deliberative theorists advocate dialogue

as a more general aspect of deliberation but treat it as temporally sequenced withdialogue preceding, and being separate from, decision making (e.g., Burkhalter et al.,2002).

When considering the current approaches to incorporating dialogue into delib-eration, it is useful to understand dialogue as an experienced quality of interaction,

rather than a structured interaction format designed to create conditions favorable tothat experience. This distinction is useful because it emphasizes that although dia-

logic experience can be encouraged and facilitated through structuring a group’sconversation according to certain guidelines, dialogic experience is neither limited

to nor guaranteed to occur during such structured interactions.Yet, if dialogue cannot be guaranteed or easily structured, how can it be incor-

porated into deliberation? Dialogue theory has a response to this conundrum. Cissnaand Anderson (1998, 2002) argue that dialogue occurs in momentary experiences ofprofound mutual awareness of the other person. This conceptualization of dialogic

moments, which is explained further later in the essay, emphasizes the temporalnature of dialogic experience. Recognizing that dialogue happens in moments can

offer a starting point to deliberative theorists interested in promoting dialoguebecause it implies that a moment of dialogue can occur in the midst of some other

kind of (nondialogic) interaction.In this essay, I argue that storytelling offers a link between dialogue and delib-

eration because personal stories have the potential to invite dialogic moments in thecontext of group deliberation. Many scholars and practitioners already recognizestorytelling as part of dialogic interaction (Arnett, 1992; Black, 2005; Gergen et al.,

2002), and dialogue groups such as the Public Conversations Project often begin byasking participants to tell their stories (Gergen et al., 2002; Herzig, 1998). However,

dialogue and deliberation scholars have not given sufficient attention to the story-telling that occurs in the midst of discussion as a means of promoting dialogic

interaction.Storytelling can promote dialogue in two ways. Storytelling helps participants co-

create and manifest their identities in relation to one another and also enables them

L. W. Black Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments


to imagine and appreciate each other’s perspectives. These features give storytellingthe potential to enable dialogic moments because they allow group members to

negotiate the tension between self and other that is present in their interaction.The identity negotiation and perspective taking functions of storytelling and

dialogue are fruitful for deliberation. Identity negotiation allows participants toexplore ways in which they are tied to one another and a larger group, which furthersdeliberation by giving participants a shared identification and sense of belonging to

a community. Even when participants are engaged in disagreement, the identitynegotiation that they engage in during dialogue can help build their commitment

to the public good by identifying the ways in which they are connected in addition torecognizing their identity differences.

Similarly, storytelling enables a kind of perspective taking that is fruitful fordeliberation because it allows participants to understand the reasonableness of

another’s perspective, even during a disagreement. In dialogic terms, storytellingcan allow participants to ‘‘imagine the real[ity] of the other’’ (Buber, 1998, p. 71)in a profound and meaningful way. If this kind of dialogic understanding is achieved,

it can promote a fairer consideration of reasons arising from different viewpointsand help participants engage in collaborative conflict management and deliberative

decision making. This theoretical argument, expanded below, is based on an under-standing of deliberative democracy, identity, dialogic moments, and storytelling.

Deliberation and difference

Deliberation, as it is currently conceptualized and practiced, is a form of small

group communication that is based on principles of democracy. The deliberationscholarship has largely grown out of political philosophy (see Gutmann & Thompson,1995; Ryfe, 2002), and the most influential conceptualizations of deliberation

emphasize democratic principles such as equality, fairness, reasoned analysis, anda focus on the public good (cf. Cohen, 1996, 1997; Gastil & Levine, 2005). This

theoretical foundation leads to a practical emphasis that is quite distinct fromdialogue practice, which tends to be rooted in traditions such as family therapy

(e.g., the Public Conversations Project) or philosophical commitments to socialconstructionism (e.g., the Public Dialogue Consortium). In this way, traditional

conceptions of deliberation are more closely aligned with theories of discussion thanwith dialogue.

Yet, critics have challenged deliberation’s exclusive emphasis on reasoned argu-

ment. Some argue that an overemphasis on reasoned argument as the only legitimateform of deliberative discourse can silence minority voices (Fraser, 1992; Sanders,

1997; Young, 1996). Others note that rationalist conceptualizations of deliberationare inadequate for addressing conflicts based on moral differences (e.g. Bohman,

1995; Gutmann & Thompson, 1995; Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997). For instance, Bohmanargues that the way to deal with moral disagreements is to seek ‘‘moral compromise’’

that relies on a notion of public reason that is ‘‘closely tied to dialogue and



communication’’ (p. 265). In a moral compromise, dialogic interactions can help theconflicting parties to understand each others’ moral framing of the issues.

These critiques have led to a number of attempts to include dialogue in delib-erative theory and practice. One noteworthy attempt comes from Burkhalter et al.

(2002), who explicitly include dialogue in their theoretical model of democraticdeliberation. The inclusion of dialogue in deliberation theory is laudable. However,Burkhalter et al.’s treatment of dialogue is limited, even misdirected, because their

conceptualization leads to a practical separation of dialogue from issue analysis. Thisseparation limits group members’ ability to recognize the potential for moments of

dialogic contact in the midst of discussion and obscures the importance of identity indeliberative interactions.

Identity in deliberation and dialogue

Group scholars note that members experience an ongoing tension between identi-fying as an individual who is separate from the group and feeling a sense of attach-

ment to the collective group (Johnson & Long, 2002). Group members’ identities arein play during all interaction, but the tension between self and other is especially

prominent when groups are dealing with difference. The communication processesthat group members use to express their identifications, categorize others, and

respond to other group members’ expressed identities are important because theycan shed light on how that tension is being managed in the group.

Most deliberative scholars do not explicitly address issues of identity (for excep-tions, see Burkhalter et al., 2002; Gastil, Black, Deess, & Leighter, 2008). Prominent

forums such as Deliberative Polls (Fishkin, 1991, 1995) and Citizen Juries (Crosby,1995) rely on demographic characteristics as a means of categorizing participants,which implies a view of identity that is predominantly tied to social group member-

ship. Social groupings are useful for understanding one common way that peopleorient to one another during a disagreement because group members’ social identity

commitments may be threatened or put in opposition to the interests of other socialgroups. However, treating identity as a relatively static construct obscures the ways in

which group members create and negotiate their identities through interaction inspecific contexts (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Gergen & Gergen, 1983; Lamerichs &

Te Molder, 2003; Tracy, 2002).Dialogue scholars emphasize the importance of understanding identity as some-

thing that is created and negotiated through communication (e.g., Gergen et al., 2002;

Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Stewart & Zediker, 2000). Dialogue practitioners recognizethat group members often emphasize their differences, rather than commonalities,

during a conflict, which makes it difficult for groups to manage deeply held differences(Chasin et al., 1996). Part of dialogue’s success in helping groups deal with differences

stems from its emphasis on co-construction and relational selfhood, which allowsgroup members to negotiate their individual identities and relationships to others

(Gergen et al., 2002; Hammond, Anderson, & Cissna, 2003; Taylor, 2004).



Hammond et al. (2003) describe the issue of identity as one of the ‘‘permanenttensions’’ in dialogue, one that is ‘‘premised on the tension between self and other’’

(p. 136). They note: ‘‘Inherently conflicting individual and group identities func-tion as a necessary tension in dialogue. Identity is not a static congruence with

an imagined real self, but is continually negotiated between individual participantsand their sense of a whole’’ (p. 137). In other words, communication does notsimply reflect the preexisting identity categories that a person possesses based on

social group membership; rather, identity is constructed, shaped, and developedthrough communication. It is through interacting with others that we create and

understand ourselves.Storytelling is one way that group members construct and manifest aspects of

their identities; therefore, the study of storytelling holds great potential for illumi-nating how deliberative group members negotiate their identities during disagree-

ments. Storytelling’s potential is not foregrounded in the extant literature ondeliberative democratic theory and has only recently been given some attention inresearch on deliberative practices (Polletta, 2006; Ryfe, 2006). Even when storytelling

is implicated or named by deliberative scholars (e.g., Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997;Sanders, 1997; Young, 1996), it is not fully recognized that stories, and storytelling

interactions, are important in their own right.

Storytelling as invitations for dialogic moments

The claim that stories can invite dialogue builds on an understanding that dialogueoccurs in moments. Cissna and Anderson (1998, 2002) present what they call the

‘‘Buber–Rogers position’’ on dialogue, which is based on the historical public con-versation between dialogue theorist Martin Buber and psychologist Carl Rogers.This position, as described by Cissna and Anderson (2002), is that ‘‘dialogue is an

awakening of other-awareness that occurs in, and through, a moment of meeting’’(p. 174). Dialogic moments are fleeting, typically unplanned, instances where partners

experience being both present and open to the other’s experience. The term presencehere refers to people bringing what Buber (1998) calls their ‘‘authentic selves’’ to the

interaction by being truthful and open about their thoughts, feelings, and experi-ences. Openness involves a genuine acceptance of the other person for who he or she

is. As Cissna and Anderson (1998) describe:

The basic character of such a dialogic moment, therefore, is the experience of

inventive surprise shared by the dialogic partners as each ‘‘turns toward’’ theother and both mutually perceive the impact of each other’s turning. It is a brief

interlude of focused awareness and acceptance of otherness and difference thatsomehow simultaneously transcends the perception of difference itself. (p. 74)

This means that, temporally, dialogue is encountered in brief moments of contactwhen two (or more) people experience a high degree of what Buber and Rogers call

mutuality.



Mutuality ‘‘emphasizes an awareness of the uniqueness of others. . . . It presumesa respect for others that includes confirmation and the willingness not to impose

one’s beliefs or standards, but does not presume power parity’’ (Hammond et al.,2003, p. 141). The conceptualization of dialogic moments recognizes that although

extended periods of full mutuality are unlikely in situations where status inequalitiesare very clear, the potential still exists for moments of mutuality. Momentary dia-logic experiences can occur in such settings and, when they do, can create profound

meaning for the people involved.A story told in isolation clearly does not guarantee mutuality. Mutuality cannot

be commanded or guaranteed in any interaction. Nonetheless, I argue that personalstories told by group members in the context of group deliberation can invite and

encourage dialogic moments. Stories bring peoples’ experiences and perspectives tothe conversation in a powerful way that is qualitatively different from issue-oriented

discussion (Fraser, 1992; Polletta, 2006; Young, 1996). So, a story can change thenature of a deliberative interaction, briefly, by making the storyteller present to othergroup members. Stories are also important ways that people construct their identi-

ties, and telling and responding to stories help group members negotiate the tensionbetween their individual and collective identities. In this way, storytelling allows

interaction partners to shape their identities in relation to one another. Moreover,storytelling can promote perspective taking, which is an important part of dialogic

experiences (cf. Buber, 1988).The following section explicates these claims with some examples of storytelling

interactions that occurred in an online deliberative forum called ‘‘Listening to theCity.’’ This 2-week-long forum was held in the summer of 2002 for residents of

the New York City area to deliberate about what ought to be built on the site ofthe former World Trade Center Twin Towers after their destruction on September11, 2001 (see Black, 2006; Polletta, 2006).

Because this forum occurred online, it may contain interactions that differ insome ways from face-to-face groups engaged in dialogue or deliberation. For

instance, this forum involved asynchronous posting, which means that participantswere not reading and responding to each others’ posts all at the same time. However,

the asynchronism allowed each participant to take the time to respond more fullywithout interruption, which could permit him or her to express ideas and tell stories

more completely than the participant would have in a face-to-face forum. This maybe comparable to the dynamic promoted when facilitators in face-to-face groups askmembers to use an object to denote speaking turns and slow down the conversational

pace (cf. Black, 2005). Similarly, although online forums can be anonymous (whichis clearly a difference from face-to-face forums), the prolonged engagement of this

forum and the severity of the events of 9/11 prompted many people in this sessionto disclose their full names and share a great deal of personal information about

themselves (see Walther, 1996, on ‘‘hyperpersonal’’ communication).Finally, as computer technology becomes more ubiquitous, many deliberative

forums are beginning to incorporate online interaction either to supplement or to



replace face-to-face meetings (e.g., Price, Nir, & Cappella, 2006). Stories in any kindof forum are bound to the particularities of their context. So, although the online

setting presents a different context from the traditional face-to-face format of delib-erative forums, the data presented here can nonetheless serve as an illustrative exam-

ple of how stories might invite dialogic moments during deliberation.

Storytelling and identity

The first step in examining how stories function in deliberative interactions is to

define what is meant by a ‘‘story.’’ A great deal of work on personal stories draws onLabov’s (1972; Labov & Waletzky, 1967) description of the narrative form. Labov

defines narrative as ‘‘one method of recapitulating past experience by matchinga verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually

occurred’’ (p. 225). Narratives are made up of, at a minimum, a series of temporallyordered clauses that provide the orientation, complicating action, and resolution ofthe story. Fully formed narratives also include an abstract, evaluation statements, and

a coda, which signifies the end of the story.Labov’s (1972) depiction of narratives’ structural components was derived from

elicited stories—accounts given to interviewers in response to specific questions.In contrast, the storytelling that occurs in groups happens during interaction, often

without explicit elicitation from another person. Some scholars criticize Labov’smodel as too limited to account for the interactional and contextual aspects of

storytelling (cf. Langillier, 1989). Thus, a number of narrative scholars study notonly the story form but also the processes involved in storytelling (Beach & Japp,

1983; Briggs, 1996; Jefferson, 1979; Mandelbaum, 1987; Norrick, 2000; Polanyi, 1985;Tracy, 2002).

The literature that is most valuable for understanding storytelling in deliberative

groups consists of studies that focus on narratives as social processes (Langillier,1989). In this perspective, ‘‘we ask not just how do people manage to do personal

narratives in conversation but what else are they doing as they tell stories?’’ (p. 261).Research on narrative as a social process takes performative and interactional aspects

of storytelling into account and also examines how people’s stories function in theirsocial contexts. As Langillier notes:

The rigid restriction of personal narrative to the recapitulation of a past eventwith particular formal properties is relaxed to entertain questions about how

narratives are used not only in talk but to talk, not only to recapitulate pastevents but to negotiate present and future events. (p. 261)

Ryfe’s (2006) study of storytelling within deliberative forums is a useful startingpoint in understanding storytelling as a social process. Ryfe (2006) builds on Labov’s

work to describe what he calls a ‘‘minimalist definition to which most scholars ofnarrative may agree’’ (p. 74). The first feature is that stories are referential: They refer

to some sequence of events that have a beginning, middle, and end. Stories also



‘‘pivot around a problem’’ (Ryfe, 2006, p. 74), which is resolved in some way thatprovides meaning to the story. When describing the problem, storytellers use eval-

uative devices (cf. Schiffrin, 1990) to help listeners understand the moral of the storyor to demonstrate why the story is worth telling. Finally, in addition to following

a narrative form, stories are performed in interaction and serve various discursivefunctions that are dependent on the context. As Ryfe (2006) notes, ‘‘the meaning ofstories lies in context—in the way they are addressed by someone to others in

a context of interaction’’ (p. 74) and the way that they function in that interaction.The connection between storytelling and identity has been noted in a wide variety

of communication domains (for a review, see Ochs & Capps, 1996). Many scholars(e.g., Bruner, 1990; Gergen & Gergen, 1983; Linde, 1993) maintain that identity is

formed, understood, and expressed through narrative. They argue that people con-struct their senses of self in narrative form and that these self-narratives are shared

with others through interaction and storytelling. Bruner (1990) notes that individ-uals give meanings to their identities not only through their own interpretations butalso from the generalized meanings available to them within their cultural context.

Studies that focus on identity, then, ought to ‘‘attend to the practices [such asstorytelling] in which ‘the meanings of Self’ are achieved and put to use’’ (p. 116).

Ochs and Capps’s (1996) description of the relationship between narrative andidentity is useful for the current project. They state that narrative and self are

‘‘inseparable’’ because ‘‘personal narrative simultaneously is born out of experienceand gives shape to experience. . . . We come to know ourselves as we use narrative to

apprehend experiences and navigate relationships with others’’ (pp. 20–21). Thus,narrative and identity have a dialectical relationship in that people construct their

senses of who they are through telling others about their experiences, yet their sensesof identity shape which experiences they choose to narrate and how they go aboutnarrating them in a given context.

Hseih’s (2004) study of a support group for transplant patients provides a prom-ising model for understanding how people negotiate their identities in deliberative

groups. Hseih demonstrated that both the sequential placement in a conversationand the ‘‘dramatic portrayal of self in stories’’ (p. 44) were meaningful in the identity

construction and negotiation process. Newcomers were welcomed and socializedinto the group by telling and hearing stories that portrayed the members’ shared

identities. Group members used stories to support one another, share information,or assert themselves as an authority during an argument. Additionally, group mem-bers told stories and responded to other stories in ways that ‘‘situate their identities

and experiences against’’ other group members (p. 55). In this group, the storiesfunctioned in a way that emphasized both collective and individual notions of

identity.

Examining stories and identity in the deliberative context

The interaction presented below occurred during the Listening to the City deliber-

ative forum and serves as an example of identity negotiation during a disagreement.1



This conversation is excerpted from a discussion thread about memorial planning.A disagreement began when Lisa, one of the participants, stated: ‘‘Of the people from

other countries that died on September 11, most were here living an American lifeand enjoying American ideals.’’ Therefore, Lisa reasoned that there was no clear need

to involve people from other countries in planning the 9/11 memorial. Anotherparticipant, Meg, disagreed, and her response included the comments, ‘‘[t]o meit’s important that an acknowledgement of the global scale of 9/11 be incorporated

in some way into the memorial’’ and ‘‘I am so hopeful this memorial will show thatas a country, while we sometimes behave as if it’s our way or no way, we do respect

and honor that we are one part of this world.’’ The following discussion post, which Icall Turn 1, is Lisa’s response.

Turn 101 Meg,

02 I know you are right, but I have to admit . . . as much as I try,03 I still feel bitter that we were attacked by people from

04 other places who used our facilities to harm us. I sometimes05 find myself really missing the days when English was the

06 only language spoken here and I trusted my neighbor.07 Believe me I am far from prejudiced—I married a man

08 from another country and embraced his culture. I wish I felt09 as you did. Intellectually it so right, but emotionally it’s not as10 easy for me.

Lisa’s post includes a brief description of her personal experience, which is used to

support her assertions about her identity. This description of personal experience isnot a story because there is no clear sequence of events presented, and it does notinclude any kind of complicating action to be resolved. Yet, it is useful to examine the

way in which Lisa presents her identity because it gives context for the story that Megprovides in the next post (Turn 2, below).

In Lines 01–06, Lisa presents herself as someone who has conflicted emotionsabout the relationship between Americans and foreigners. Although she ‘‘knows’’

‘‘intellectually’’ that Meg is ‘‘right’’ to want to include people from outside of theUnited States in the planning, Lisa feels nostalgic for a time when everyone spoke

English and she ‘‘trusted’’ her ‘‘neighbor.’’ She feels ‘‘bitter’’ about being attacked by‘‘people from other places.’’ This portrayal of her self maintains a strong distinctionbetween ‘‘us,’’ American citizens and those who take on ‘‘American ideals,’’ and

‘‘them,’’ people from outside of the United States. Despite the fact that her idyllicdescription of the past as a time when ‘‘English was the only language spoken here’’ is

historically inaccurate, its presentation reinforces Lisa’s identity as one of ‘‘us’’ thatexists in opposition to ‘‘them.’’

This distinction between us and them runs throughout Lisa’s post but is com-plicated by her brief description of her experience in Lines 07 and 08. She declares

that, contrary to what it might seem like from her distinction between ‘‘us’’ and



‘‘them,’’ she is ‘‘far from prejudiced’’ because of her marriage to a man from anothercountry, whose culture she ‘‘embraced.’’ The self she constructs here is a person who

wants to be inclusive of diverse cultures but has been so hurt that she cannot findconnection with others who are outside of her social identity group.

In response, Meg does two things. First, she briefly recounts some of herthoughts and feelings related to the events of 9/11. Next, she presents a storyof her vision for the future of the site. Although the story itself (presented in Lines

11–12) is the central feature of this post, Meg’s framing of the story in the earlypart of her post also demonstrates how she engages in identity negotiation in

response to Lisa.

Turn 2

01 Lisa, I am sick to death of what the terrorists did to us and how02 they took advantage of us. Today I was reading Jere Longman’s

03 book, ‘‘Among the Heroes,’’ an in-depth account of what happened04 on board flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. The hijackers’

05 plans, he writes, were so ‘‘successful and chilling’’ because they06 ‘‘skillfully exploit[ed] a culture that [they] despised.’’ I will never

07 forget what the terrorists did nor the generosity extended to them,08 and I will never forgive.

09 None of us who witnessed 9/11 will ever be the same. Heretofore,10 I have divided my life into before my late husband’s death, and after.11 Now I have also divided it into pre-9/11 and post-9/11. No matter

12 what we build, no matter what the memorial testifies to, all of us will13 look there with anguish mixed in amongst the other feelings, and we

14 will remember. And we will feel more than a little hate.15 But 60 or 70 years from now, and far into the future, when we are

16 gone, succeeding generations will see what we have built and they17 will look at it and think of the anguish of that day. What I hope is

18 that they will also see and feel something else: that we could have19 built a monument that reflected the vengeance and defiance we feel20 but instead built something that reflected the very best that we are

21 and the good citizen we want to be in this world.22 I think this memorial and rebuilding process is really difficult for us

23 because we don’t have the advantage of that perspective, but we must24 acknowledge that we are not alone here. I feel strongly it should show

25 who we can be as well as who we are now.

For analytic purposes, it is useful to consider this post of Meg’s as containing two

distinct parts. The first is her reflection on the 9/11 events, in Lines 01–10, whichframes the story that follows. In this first paragraph, Meg shapes her identity to show

connection with Lisa. This paragraph builds on the distinction between ‘‘us’’ and‘‘them.’’ The referent for Meg’s use of ‘‘us’’ in Lines 01 and 02 is unclear. It could be

Americans, New Yorkers, and/or the members of the discussion group but is



definitely a group of which she and her interactional partner are both part. Like Lisa,Meg demonstrates her distance from ‘‘them’’ by stating that she will ‘‘never forget’’ or

‘‘forgive’’ ‘‘them’’ for their actions against ‘‘us’’ and our generosity. In Lines 08 and09, she concurs with Lisa that the events of 9/11 were so tragic that they now

punctuate her thinking about her own life, and she later connects with Lisa’s mixedemotions by recognizing that no matter what is built to memorialize the events, ‘‘allof us’’ will feel ‘‘anguish’’ and ‘‘hate’’ when visiting the memorial. All these identity

statements work to demonstrate Meg’s connection with Lisa.Starting on Line 11, though, Meg’s post takes a more narrative tone. She moves

away from discussing the present time and begins to narrate future events related towhat she hopes for the memorial. Although this is not a description of past personal

experience, treating narratives as social process allows us to see her tale as a story. Herstory follows a narrative form as discussed above, is tied to her personal experience,

and demonstrates both the referential and the evaluative aspects that are central tonarratives. Moreover, her story performs an important identity negotiation functionby envisioning a future, transformed, global self that Meg and Lisa could share.

After establishing a common identity with Lisa, Meg goes on to expand heridentification beyond the original us-versus-them framework. In Lines 12 through

14, she recognizes the difficulty that she, Lisa, and others who experienced 9/11firsthand will have in coming to terms with the events regardless of what is built

to memorialize them. However, in her hypothetical narrative, future generations visitthe grand memorial and sense not only the ‘‘anguish of that day’’ but also a feeling of

global citizenship and connection with others from around the world. The memorialitself, Meg argues, should not simply ‘‘reflect the vengeance and defiance we feel’’ at

the current time but ought to be forward looking to reflect ‘‘the good citizen we wantto be in this world.’’ So, although Meg appreciates and seems to share Lisa’s iden-tification with America as separate from and against ‘‘them,’’ she reshapes the

‘‘them’’ to mean solely the terrorists, rather than all foreigners, and enlarges the‘‘us’’ to incorporate people from all around the world.

Through her story, Meg treats the collective identity of ‘‘us’’ (vs. ‘‘them’’) as atemporary response to the attacks and places it in tension with the ‘‘we’’ that is

a ‘‘good citizen’’ of the world, which is the ‘‘very best that we are.’’ The contrastof ‘‘who we are now’’ and ‘‘who we can be’’ presents a complex identity that is tied to

a larger social transformation that can occur when ‘‘we’’ recognize that ‘‘we are notalone here.’’

Implications for dialogue and deliberation

The connection of storytelling and identity is important in thinking about stories

as holding potential for dialogic moments. Sharing personal experience in a groupsetting can be a risk, especially when that experience draws attention to difference

between the storyteller and some other group members. By telling personal storiesabout their experiences and their visions for the future, group members make aspects

of themselves present to the group. Stories could overemphasize identity differences



by focusing exclusively on the teller’s individual experiences. However, as theinteraction between Meg and Lisa demonstrates, group members’ stories can lead

participants to explore possible connections with one another and create opportu-nities for group members to experience both otherness and connection, even if only

in brief moments. In the situation presented here, Lisa seems to recognize thepotential for dialogic contact that is invited by the identity negotiation in Meg’sstory. This recognition is evident in Lisa’s response, which is presented in Turn 3

(below).One implication for deliberative forums is that storytelling may help the teller to

identify himself or herself as a member of the larger social group—one whoseexperiences are connected with larger social issues worthy of public consideration.

Although the Listening to the City forum was open to anyone who wished to join,many forums, such as Deliberative Polls, select participants randomly to create

a demographically representative sample (Fishkin, 1991). It is likely that at leastsome of these participants do not think about themselves as politically active citizens.Through telling and responding to stories, group members can negotiate their sense

of self as an individual with a broader identification as a citizen of a larger state orglobal community. Individuals who do not consider themselves politically knowl-

edgeable have the opportunity to talk about something they understand and haveexpertise in—their own experiences—and rethink them in light of public policy and

civic responsibility.

Storytelling and perspective taking

In addition to being a way that people negotiate identity, storytelling also has thepotential to encourage perspective taking in groups that are managing difference.Perspective taking is central to the experience of dialogic moments as described

above. Additionally, the perspective taking that can arise from storytelling interac-tions is useful for deliberation because it can allow group members to understand

and respect one another’s experiences and views in a more complete and nuancedway than they might through other types of communication.

One reason stories can enable perspective taking is because they manifestthe values and cultural worldview of the storyteller (Hannerz, 1969; Hansen &

Kahnweiler, 1997; Meyer, 1995; Philipsen, 1997; Smith, 1998). Value manifestationis very relevant to deliberation because it is often difficult for participants to under-stand worldviews and value systems that are different from their own. Part of what

makes stories powerful is that they are able to display values and worldviews that aretypically not talked about explicitly. By displaying these values, stories can allow

listeners to understand another person’s values in a way that is qualitatively differentfrom what group members would likely experience through other types of discursive

interaction. Thus, hearing stories from others who hold different values may make iteasier for deliberative participants to understand the reasonableness of positions and

interests that are different from their own.



In addition to manifesting values and worldviews, stories can draw listeners intothe story world, thus helping listeners understand the storyteller’s perspective in ways

that rational argumentation does not. Bauman (1986) notes that an importantfeature of stories is that they are ‘‘doubly anchored in human events’’ by being ‘‘keyed

both to the events in which they are told and to the events that they recount’’(Bauman, 1986, p. 2; see also Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Briggs, 1996). This doubleanchoring can allow the listeners to take on something from the experience of the

storyteller and make it their own. Some specific storytelling devices such as evaluativestatements (Schiffrin, 1990) and meta-narrative comments (Bauman, 1986) have

been shown to specifically draw attention to the link between the events in the storyand either the topic of discussion or the characteristics and values of the storyteller’s

audience.Perhaps stories have the ability to invite listeners into the story world because of

what Fisher (1984) calls resonance. That is, stories can help people understandaspects of other lives that are quite different from their own. Although stories canfunction differently depending on their cultural context, Fisher argues that the

resonant feature of narratives allows listeners to empathize with the characters inthe stories. This resonance may make it easier to understand the perspective of the

storyteller. Psychologist Melanie Green (2004, 2006; Green & Brock, 2000) refers tothis dynamic as ‘‘transportation.’’ When listeners are highly engaged in a story, they

can empathize with the characters in the story and become transported into the storyworld. This transportation helps listeners to understand, and at times even take on,

story-consistent values.

Examining perspective taking in a deliberative context

To examine the aspects of perspective taking, we consider further the Listening to theCity conversation about memorial planning. In Turn 2 above, Meg makes a meta-

narrative statement, ‘‘I think this memorial and rebuilding process is really difficultfor us because we don’t have the advantage of this perspective.’’ Her narrative also

includes evaluations such as ‘‘what I hope is that they will also see and feel somethingelse.’’ Both of these narrative devices specifically link the future events depicted in her

story to the current state of affairs in the Listening to the City discussion aboutmemorial planning, thus inviting listeners into the story world to experience them

for themselves.In Lisa’s response to Meg’s post, she demonstrates that she is able to take Meg’s

perspective and uses this perspective to reevaluate her personal experience.

Turn 3

01 Meg,02 what you just wrote was exceptionally telling—You haven’t

03 expressed bitterness until now and I have to say I admire how04 eloquently and perceptively you look ahead. Even if you don’t05 forgive what they did, you don’t let it close your heart to



06 the best of what can come despite it . . . there is much to be07 learned from you! My former husband was from the middle east

08 . . . and his friends used to talk of peace in the region and how it09 would only come when the generations who felt the pain and

10 bitterness of death that resulted from war were gone. I remember11 those conversations . . . but what I learn from you today . . . [is]12 that time spent waiting for wounds to heal is time wasted. Thank you.

In this post, Lisa revisits her personal experience she described in Turn 1 but this

time reframes it as a story that is in line with the vision that Meg has painted for thefuture. Lisa explicitly thanks Meg and expresses admiration for ‘‘how eloquently andperceptively you look ahead.’’ She articulately describes the perspective that Meg

expressed in her narrative as a tension between the ‘‘bitterness’’ she feels and thedesire to not ‘‘close your heart to the best of what can come despite it.’’

In Lines 07–10, Lisa revisits her experience from Turn 1, but she reframes itwith an evaluative statement that clearly aligns with Meg. Lisa remembers her

conversations with her former husband and his friends about violence in the Mid-dle East and how ‘‘peace’’ would only come when ‘‘the generations who felt the pain

and bitterness of death that resulted from war were gone.’’ However, in this retell-ing of her experience, she does not portray those conversations as an example of

her identifying with and embracing her husband’s culture as she did in Turn 1above. Rather, she evaluates them here in light of Meg’s post when she says: ‘‘WhatI learn from you today . . . [is] that time spent waiting for wounds to heal is time

wasted.’’This extended example between Meg and Lisa demonstrates many aspects of how

stories function during disagreement in deliberative groups. Both participants nego-tiate their identities in relation to one another through their stories and responses.

By chaining her narrative onto Meg’s, Lisa shows how storytellers can build onone another’s stories, display their values, invite listeners into the story world, and

attempt to understand and take on aspects of each other’s perspectives.The final part of this example demonstrates how the functions of identity nego-

tiation and perspective taking can occur in a group setting. This post comes from

a third group member, Sara, who responds to the Meg and Lisa exchange. Sara’s postis the final post of this story chain. Sara begins the post by stating her opinion on who

should be included in memorial planning (the original topic of the disagreementbetween Meg and Lisa) and goes on to share a story about her personal experiences

related to 9/11.

Turn 4

01 Having an international architectural competition will help02 people in many regions around the world participate, but

03 some special attention might still be given to the families.04 I think 80 people who are Canadian were killed, and the cdn

05 news was closely reporting on all of the efforts when I returned



06 there for a visit. It was so awful because many people could07 only afford to stay in NYC for a few days or weeks, and many

08 felt so disoriented, despite speaking the same language. Their09 reports really brought home the events to people in Canada.

10 And our two countries are so similar. I can’t imagine being a11 family member from Benin, Pakistan, or Peru—or having lost12 a loved one who did not have formal work authorization.

13 While it sounds awful as a marker, I do feel even more a part14 of America since sharing in this tragedy, but sometimes feel

15 something similar to Lisa’s sense of disorientation in an16 inverted way—but for me it emerges when the memorial events

17 use many patriotic symbols—because my love for America18 is a little different from that of people who grew up here, and I

19 am not a citizen. This is not meant as a criticism, but just how20 I feel at times. The world hurts so much in each of the places21 that lost someone, and Joey_B points out how this fits

22 into other acts of mass violence. But in any case, I would like23 for the families far away to be included somehow. I agree with

24 Localguy that other govts can help provide resources.

Sara’s story, in Lines 04–10, describes the perspective of Canadians who lost family

members in the attacks. Her evaluative comments, such as ‘‘it was so awful’’ (in Line06) and ‘‘they felt so disoriented despite speaking the same language’’ (Line 08),

emphasize her own perspective as a Canadian and the experiences of the charactersin her story. In this way, the narrative part of Sara’s post provides the potential for

other group members to understand her perspective.Sara’s post is also a response to the Meg and Lisa exchange. As such, it constructs

her own identity in relation to Lisa and Meg and demonstrates that she understandstheir perspectives. She shares their love for America but, as a Canadian, says that sheexperiences it in a way that is ‘‘a little different from that of the people who grew up

here’’ (Line 18). Sara’s ability to be one of ‘‘us’’ and yet, as she says, ‘‘not a citizen’’presents a complex identity that builds on the tension Lisa and Meg expressed. She

also shares Lisa’s feeling of ‘‘disorientation’’ about the relationship between Amer-icans and foreigners, but for her, it happens in ‘‘an inverted way.’’ Moreover, Sara’s

comment in Lines 20 and 21, ‘‘the world hurts so much in each of the places that lostsomeone,’’ connects with Meg’s description in Turn 2 of ‘‘us’’ as members of a global

community.Sara’s post is important in this interaction because her story and the way it is

framed enlarges the notion of collective identity that is being negotiated by Meg and

Lisa. Her post also functions to show connections between the Meg and Lisaexchange and the ongoing discussion about memorial planning through referencing

comments made by other group members and bringing the conversation back to thetopic of disagreement. As such, her post shows how dialogic moments, such as the



one that seems to have been shared by Meg and Lisa, can occur within and be linkedto a larger deliberative discussion.

Implications for dialogue and deliberation

Perspective taking is important for deliberation because it can allow group memberswith disparate views to begin to understand the truthfulness and coherence of oneanother’s opinions. In a disagreement, such as the one displayed in this extended

example, perspective taking can help group members understand multiple sides of anissue and may further deliberative decision making. As deliberative theorists attempt

to enlarge the conceptualization of deliberation beyond the limitations of reasongiving (e.g., Burkhalter et al., 2002; Fraser, 1992; Ryfe, 2006; Sanders, 1997), it is

important to draw attention to discourse practices that promote perspective taking.Although deliberative group members may be able to understand one another’s

positions based on other kinds of interaction or evidence, stories’ resonance (Fisher,1984) makes it easier for listeners to understand and take on the reality of an other ina powerful way. This experience of perspective taking is part of a dialogic moment as

group members may be ‘‘turning to the other and experiencing the relationship, asmuch as possible, as it is experienced by the other’’ (Cissna & Anderson, 1998, p. 74).

Stories can invite such moments by helping group members understand the storyteller’sperspective and encounter the characters’ experiences for themselves, even with a sto-

ryteller who they see as an ‘‘other’’ or with whom they disagree (cf. Black, 2005). Theperspective taking that is encouraged by storytelling as it occurs in deliberation can

promote dialogic moments because it allows group members to engage as dialogicpartners: those who are able to experience human contact by standing their own ground

while simultaneously being open to experiencing otherness (Stewart & Zediker, 2000).

Conclusions

This essay has argued that stories can invite dialogic moments because they allow

group members to negotiate the tension between self and other in their interactions.Group members shape their identities as they tell and respond to one another’s

stories, and these stories encourage listeners to understand the perspective of thestoryteller. In this way, storytelling can provide group members with an opportunity

to experience presence, openness, and a relational tension between self and other,which are central features of dialogic moments. Such moments, if experienced, canpotentially have positive influences on deliberative discussion by helping group

members participate in a sense of shared collective identity and seriously considerthe views and values of their fellow group members.

Clearly, not all stories will lead to dialogic moments. Although stories hold thepotential for identity negotiation and perspective taking, these features are accom-

plished in interaction, and it stands to reason that they will not always be achieved.Thus, it is quite likely that stories serve a variety of functions in deliberative groups.

Dialogue theory emphasizes that dialogue cannot be mandated or forced because the



moments of human contact that characterize dialogue are emergent and surprising(cf. Buber, 1988; Stewart, 1978). As Cissna and Anderson (2002) note: ‘‘Dialogue is

facilitated by structuring potentially dialogic spaces, both geographic and attitudinal,and not by arranging or mandating dialogue itself’’ (p. 175). I offer the observation

that the naturally occurring storytelling that takes place during deliberation caninvite people into such a dialogic space by shifting the conversation, even briefly,away from reason giving toward personal experience and human connection. In this

way, the study of stories offers a discourse-centered approach that can help scholarsfocus attention on interactions that hold dialogic potential.

The argument presented here draws attention to deliberative theory’s movetoward enlarging the concept to more adequately include dialogue. Historically,

models of deliberation have primarily emphasized reasons, rather than personalexperience, as the foundation for deliberative democracy (e.g., Cohen, 1996).

Traditional approaches to deliberation acknowledge that people have differentpersonal experiences, which ought to be ‘‘protected’’ in order to ensure delibera-tive values such as ‘‘inclusion’’ and ‘‘equality of participation’’ (Cohen, 1996,

p. 105). However, in line with the generally rationalist approach, Cohen under-stands these personal expressions as ‘‘reasons’’ that group members can give to

support their arguments. Although citizens have a ‘‘right’’ to express personalreasons, the outcomes of deliberation, says Cohen (1996), ought to be based

only on ‘‘acceptable reasons’’ that ‘‘can be justified’’ in the sense of ‘‘reasonablepluralism’’ (p. 105).

Many contemporary deliberative scholars point out the limitations of thetheory’s rationalist tradition. They argue that scholars and practitioners need to

move away from an overemphasis on reason giving as the primary discursivecontribution expected during deliberative practice (e.g., Barge, 2002; Bohman,1995; Burkhalter et al., 2002; Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Sanders, 1997; Young,

1996). As Young points out, if scholars treat stories solely as personal reasons,then storytelling is not clearly deliberative because it focuses too much attention

on the individual, rather than the public group, and presents arguments in a formthat is difficult for others to disagree with without seeming to make a personal

attack on the storyteller.I argue that the view of stories simply as reasons also fails to recognize how

storytelling involves identity negotiation and the potential for perspective taking,both of which can aid deliberative democracy. As the exchange presented in this essaydemonstrates, stories can help group members understand one another’s experiences

and explore the connections and tensions of their collective identities. Telling andresponding to stories can also allow group members to explore the ways in which

their different perspectives on an issue converge and diverge. In this way, part of theanalysis that is essential for deliberation can occur through storytelling rather than

despite it (cf. Polletta, 2006). Other aspects of the discussion can clearly lend them-selves to critical evaluation of the issues. But, if given the opportunity, that analysis

can be augmented by the process of telling and responding to personal stories.



Implications for theory and practice

Theorizing stories as invitations for dialogic moments means that dialogue and

deliberation do not need to be separated as clearly as they are in current theoryand practice. On their own, stories are not necessarily dialogic—simply sharing one’s

experiences does not guarantee a dialogic interaction. However, in groups that havealready agreed to some communication guidelines that promote respect, equal

speaking opportunities, and listener responsibilities (Gastil, 1993), telling and hear-ing stories can be an important way to begin to engage dialogically.

One way that storytelling can promote dialogue in deliberative groups is bysimply helping group members bring their experiences and perspectives to the con-versation and, thus, begin to be present to one another. This perspective on stories

has importance for deliberative practice. Most deliberative forums involve some kindof group introduction process. If moderators can see stories as invitations for

dialogic moments, then they could frame these introductions as an opportunityfor group members to tell their stories. This framing can make the potential for

dialogue evident right at the beginning of the group interactions without moderatorsattempting to impart or command dialogue.

Stories should not be limited to the early stages of group interaction, however,because storytelling that occurs in the midst of deliberative talk can promote

dialogic moments in a way that is different from introductory stories. Understand-ing storytelling as an invitation for dialogic moments implies that a temporalseparation between dialogue and discussion not only is unnecessary but also may

be counterproductive. Through storytelling practices, it is quite likely that groupmembers are able to manage the minute-by-minute distinctions between dialogic

interaction and interaction that privileges analysis. If groups engage in story chain-ing, as evidenced in the example provided in this essay, their storytelling can be

multivocal by presenting different group members’ experiences and perspectives.Yet, the common themes that arise as participants tell and respond to stories can

forge connections among group members and illuminate the tensions among thesemultiple voices.

Finally, conceptualizing stories as dialogic moments offers a new direction for

dialogue research. Hammond et al. (2003) call for future research on ‘‘how peoplenegotiate and manage identity at dialogic moments, as well as when and why they

expand their experiential horizons from self to other’’ (p. 150). Storytelling offersdialogue scholars a way to respond to that call. Scholars interested in dialogue can

study how group members tell and respond to stories in the midst of deliberationand other group interactions to understand better when and how these stories might

be part of dialogic moments.Sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, narrative theory, and cultural communi-

cation research offer a variety of well-established research strategies for studyingstories and storytelling that could be of use to dialogue scholars. By studying story-telling during deliberation, we can investigate the extent to which storytelling allows



group members to experience moments of dialogue and examine what thosemoments mean for them in their interactions. Future research in this vein would

support the efforts by Barge (2002) and others to examine the interrelationship ofdialogue and discussion as they occur in actual group interaction.

Note

1 The participants’ names presented here have been changed; all quotations reflect the

participants’ spelling and punctuation.

References

Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identities in talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arnett, R. C. (1986). Communication and community: Implications of Martin Buber’s dialogue.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Arnett, R. C. (1992). Dialogic education: Conversation about ideas and between persons.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Barge, J. K. (2002). Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to

dialogue. In L. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159–178).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barge, J. K., & Little, M. (2002). Dialogical wisdom, communicative practice, and

organizational life. Communication Theory, 12, 375–397.

Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on

language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.

Beach, W. A., & Japp, P. (1983). Storifying as time-traveling: The knowledgeable use of

temporally structured discourse. Communication Yearbook, 7, 867–888.

Black, L. W. (2005). Building connection while thinking together: By-products of employee

training in dialogue. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 273–292.

Black, L. W. (2006). Deliberation, difference, and the story: How storytelling manages identity

and conflict in deliberative groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Washington.

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.

Bohman, J. (1995). Public reason and cultural pluralism: Political liberalism and the problem

of moral conflict. Political Theory, 23, 253–279.

Bormann, E. G. (1996). Symbolic convergence theory and communication in group decision

making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group

decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 81–113). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Briggs, C. (1996). Disorderly discourse: Narrative, conflict, and inequality. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (M. Friedman, Ed.; R. G. Smith, Trans.).

New York: MacMillan.

Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Scribner.



Buber, M. (1998). The knowledge of man: Selected essays (M. Friedman, Ed.; M. Friedman &

R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Humanity Books.

Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical

model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory,

12, 398–422.

Chasin, R., Herzig, M., Roth, S., Chasin, L., Becker, C., & Stains, R. R., Jr. (1996). From

diatribe to dialogue on divisive public issues: Approaches drawn from family therapy.

Mediation Quarterly, 13, 323–344.

Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber-Rogers

position and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8, 63–104.

Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (2002). Moments of meeting: Buber, Rogers, and the potential for

public dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cohen, J. (1996). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),

Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 95–119).

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. F. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.),

Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67–91). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Crosby, N. (1995). Citizen juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions.

In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in

citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston:

Kluwer Academic.

Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical organizational dialogue: Open formation and the

demand of ‘‘otherness.’’ In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue:

Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 141–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation.

New York: Wiley.

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as human communication paradigm: The case of public

moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22.

Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually

existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making, and

communication. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Gastil, J., Black, L. W., Deess, P., & Leighter, J. (2008). From group member to democratic

citizen: How deliberating with fellow jurors reshapes civic attitudes. Human

Communication Research, 34, 137–169.

Gastil, J., & Keith, W. M. (2005). A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of

public deliberation in the United States. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative

democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 3–19).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.



Gastil, J. & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for

effective civic engagement in the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1983). Narratives of the self. In T. R. Sarbin & K. E. Scheibe

(Eds.), Studies in social identity (pp. 254–273). New York: Praeger.

Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. J. (2002). Realizing transformative dialogue.

In N. C. Roberts (Ed.), Research in public policy analysis and management:

Vol. 12. The transformative power of dialogue (pp. 77–106). Oxford, UK:

Elsevier Science.

Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and

perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 18, 247–266.

Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication,

56(Suppl. 1), S163–S183.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public

narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1995). Moral disagreement in a democracy. In E. F. Paul,

F. D. Miller, & J. Paul (Eds.), Contemporary political and social philosophy. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy

and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21–30). Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Hammond, S. C., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K. N. (2003). The problematics of dialogue and

power. Communication Yearbook, 27, 125–158.

Hannerz, U. (1969). Soulside: Inquiries into ghetto culture and community. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Hansen, C. D., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (1997). Executive managers: Cultural expectations

through stories about work. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6,

117–138.

Herzig, M. (1998). Starting a new conversation: When debate is fruitless, shifting to

dialogue can create a climate for resolution. Dispute Resolution Magazine, Summer,

pp. 10–13.

Hseih, E. (2004). Stories in action and the dialogic management of identities: Storytelling

in transplant support group meetings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37,

39–70.

Hyde, B., & Bineham, J. L. (2000). Southern Communication Journal, 65, 208–223.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to

communicating in business and in life. New York: Currency.

Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of political decisions and fiascos.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jefferson, G. (1979). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.),

Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York:

Academic Press.

Johnson, S. C., & Long, L. M. (2002). ‘‘Being a part and being apart’’: Dialectics and group

communication. In L. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 25–42).




Kellet, P. (1999). Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change:

The case of a mission-based transformation. Southern Communication Journal,

64, 211–231.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English vernacular.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.

In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays in the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of

Washington Press.

Lamerichs, J., & Te Molder, H. F. M. (2003). Computer mediated communication: From

a cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society, 5, 451–473.

Langillier, K. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research.

Text and Performance Quarterly, 9, 243–276.

Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mandelbaum, J. (1987). Interpersonal activities in conversational storytelling. Western Journal

of Speech Communication, 53, 114–126.

Meyer, J. C. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives.

Communication Quarterly, 43, 210–224.

Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 19–43.

Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide.


Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2000). Combining passions and abilities: Toward dialogic

virtuosity. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 161–175.

Philipsen, G. (1997). A theory of speech codes. In G. Philipsen & T. Albrecht (Eds.),

Developing communication theories (pp. 119–156). Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Polanyi, L. (1985). Conversational storytelling. In T. A Van Dijk. (Ed.), Handbook of discourse

analysis: Vol. 3. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 183–202). London: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Polletta, F. (2006). It was like a fever: Storytelling in protest and politics. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online

political discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47–74.

Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative

organizations. Political Communication, 19, 359–377.

Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of

Applied Communication Research, 34, 72–93.

Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347–376.

Schiffrin, D. (1990). The management of co-operative self during argument: The role

of opinions and stories. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic

investigations of arguments in conversation (pp. 241–259). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Smith, K. K. (1998). Storytelling, sympathy, and moral judgment in American abolitionism.

Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 356–377.



Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech,

64, 183–201.

Stewart, J. R., & Zediker, K. E. (2000). Dialogue as tensional, ethical practice. Southern

Communication Journal, 65, 224–242.

Taylor, J. R. (2004). Dialogue as the search for sustainable organizational co-orientation.

In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in

communication studies (pp. 125–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York: Guilford.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy.

In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political

(pp. 120–135). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



Délibération, narration et moments dialogiques

Laura W. Black

School of Communication Studies, 211 Lasher Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH

45701.

La théorie du dialogue promeut des pratiques communicationnelles qui aident les

groupes à comprendre et à gérer de façon productive leurs différences. Toutefois,

en conceptualisant le dialogue comme une manière distincte de communiquer, les

chercheurs tendent à négliger la façon dont le dialogue peut se produire de façon

cooccurente à d’autres manières par lesquelles les groupes font face à la différence.

Cette séparation conceptuelle peut aussi limiter l’abilité des groupes à voir le

potentiel du dialogue lorsqu’ils se livrent à la discussion. Cet article soumet que la

narration personnelle peut être un pont entre le dialogue et la discussion, en

invitant les membres d’un groupe à vivre des moments dialogiques au coeur d’une

conversation délibérative. Les histoires invitent des moments dialogiques, car elles

aident les membres d’un groupe à négocier les tensions soi-autre. Cette négociation

se produit parce qu’à travers la narration d’histoires personnelles et les réponses à

celles-ci, les membres d’un groupe construisent leurs identités et épousent les

perspectives des autres. Cette allégation est illustrée par l’analyse d’une interaction

narrative ayant eu lieu dans un groupe de délibération en ligne discutant de la

façon de reconstruire le site de l’ancien World Trade Center suivant sa destruction

le 11 septembre 2001. La conceptualisation de la narration comme une invitation à

des moments dialogiques a des implications pour la théorie du dialogue, sa

recherche et sa pratique.

Deliberation, Geschichten erzählen und Momente des Dialogs

Laura W. Black

School of Communication Studies, 211 Lasher Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH

45701.

Dialogtheorie befördert Kommunikationspraktiken, die Gruppen dabei helfen, ihre

Unterschiede zu verstehen und effektiver damit umzugehen. Bei einer

Konzeptualisierung des Dialogs als Form der Kommunikation übersehen

Wissenschaftler oft, dass die dialogische Form auch im Zusammenhang mit

anderen Art und Weisen mit Unterschieden umzugehen vorkommt. Diese

konzeptuelle Unterteilung kann möglicherweise die Fähigkeit von Gruppen

limitieren, das Potential eines Dialogs während einer Diskussion zu erkennen.

Dieser Artikel argumentiert deshalb, dass persönliches Geschichten erzählen als

eine Brücke zwischen Dialog und Diskussion begriffen werden kann, da auf diese

Weise Gruppenmitgliedern ermöglicht wird, Dialogmomente inmitten einer

deliberativen Unterhaltung zu erleben. Geschichten befördern dialogische

Momente, weil sie den Gruppenmitgliedern helfen, die Spannung zwischen sich

und anderen auszuhalten und zu verhandeln. Dieses Aushandeln entsteht, da die

Gruppenmitglieder durch das Geschichten erzählen und die Reaktion auf diese

persönlichen Geschichten ihre eigene Identität formen und die Perspektiven der

anderen übernehmen. Diese Argumentationsweise wird anhand der Analyse einer

Interaktion mit Geschichten erzählen illustriert. Diese Interaktion fand online

innerhalb einer deliberativen Gruppe statt, die diskutierte, wie man das World

Trade Center nach der Zerstörung am 11. September rekonstruieren sollte.

Geschichten erzählen als Aufforderung für dialogische Momente zu

konzeptualisieren hat wiederum Implikationen für die Dialogtheorie und für

Forschung und Praxis.

La Deliberación, el Contar Cuentos y los Momentos de Diálogo

Laura W. Black

Ohio University

La teoría del diálogo promueve prácticas de comunicación que ayudan a los

grupos a entender y manejar sus diferencias en forma productiva. Hasta

ahora, al conceptualizar el diálogo como una forma distintiva de

comunicación, los estudiosos pasaron por alto cómo el diálogo puede ocurrir

simultáneamente con otras formas en las que los grupos manejan sus

diferencias. Esta separación conceptual puede limitar también las

habilidades de los grupos para ver el potencial del diálogo cuando están

comprometidos en la discusión. Este ensayo argumenta que el contar

historias personales puede servir como un puente entre el diálogo y la

discusión a través de la invitación de los miembros del grupo a experimentar

momentos de diálogo en el medio de las conversaciones deliberativas. Los

cuentos invitan a momentos de diálogo porque ayudan a los miembros de un

grupo a negociar las tensiones entre unos y otros. Esta negociación ocurre

porque, a través del contar y responder a las historias personales, los

miembros del grupo crean sus identidades y asumen las perspectivas de los

otros. Este argumento es ilustrado mediante el análisis de una interacción de

historias personales ocurrido durante una deliberación online de un grupo

que discutió cómo reconstruir el sitio del World Trade Center después de su

destrucción el 11 de septiembre del 2001. Conceptualizar el contar

cuentos/historias como una invitación a momentos de diálogo tiene

implicancias para la teoría del diálogo, la investigación, y la práctica.

思虑、讲故事和对话片刻

Laura W. Black

俄亥俄大学

对话理论即促进群体之间的理解并帮助他们有效处理彼此之间的差异。然

而，研究者将对话理论化成一种独特的传播方式的时候，倾向于忽视对话和

其他处理群体间差异之方法同时发生的机制。这种概念上的割裂也限制了群

体在进行讨论时发现对话之潜力的能力。本文认为，通过在思虑交谈过程中

邀请群体成员经历一些对话的片刻，个人化的讲故事手段可以充当对话和讨

论之间的桥梁。讲故事能诱发对话性的片刻，是因为它帮助群体间成员缓建

彼此之间的紧张关系。这种缓解功能之所以能发生，是因为通过讲故事并对

故事作出反应，群体成员能转变其身份并站在对方角度上想问题。通过分析

一个网络群体在讨论 911 事件后如何重建世贸中心这个议题时所进行的讲故

事式的互动，上述观点得到了阐述。将讲故事概括成一种诱发对话性片刻的

手段在对话理论、研究及实践中都有一定的涵义。

deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments

Documents