Hvad er fornuftig uenighed?

Gennem foredrag og workshops og debatteren styrkes bevidstheden om, hvad fornuftig uenighed er, og hvilke styrker denne debatform, som Delibero arbejder med, kan have.

Læs også om projektet her og kontakt Mette H. Kirkegaard 61701864

Vi har brug for en bedre samtale med hinanden. 

Min ide til delibero tager afsæt i mit speciale som undersøgte forskellige debatkoncepters anvendelse af et ideal om Fornuftig uenighed brugt i offentlige debatfora.

Delibero tager debatten med ud i virksomheder og ind i folks dagligstuer med et såkaldt salon-koncept.

Idealet er bl.a. Rawls’ ideal om fornuftig uenighed, da det er min antagelse, at et debatkoncept ud fra dette ideal kan forbedre borgernes tillid til hverandre og også kan skabe en bedre demokratisk samtale med plads til uens holdninger, en fornuftig uenighed, hvor borgere og politikere kan begynde at tale sammen i en end, som Hal Koch beskrev i 1945 i bogen “hvad er demokrati” en ånd, som stadig er aktuel.

Læs om mit speciale her i en såkaldt abstract:

Good Practice in Public Debate

When people stop voting for their leaders, leaders will finally listen. This is a time where democracy is under threat. This thesis therefore focuses on the politicians’ habits in public debate. My hypothesis is that much of the political debate which has been shaped by spin doctors for the past twenty years has compromised democratic debate. Many people are getting tired of politicians’ debate behavior, they tend to stop voting for the same politicians, go for alternative new candidates that appear to listen to them, politicians making huge promises, more than they can fulfill, in socalled populism. Taking its point of departure in a documented situation where many citizens have lost trust in their leaders, the thesis will discuss possibilities for a more democratically useful debate. It seems there is a legitimacy crisis regarding democracy among voters,  affecting the conditions for a useful public debate. I will examine the criteria for a good public debate within the ideal of “reasonable disagreement” as stated by John Rawls, Christian Kock, Trudy Govier a.o.My conclusion here will turn our attention towards education. “Frirummet” is a new, promising initiative that has devised a new debate format with a certain set of rules, requiring politicians to recognize doubt and enter into dialogue with each other and the audience. I will use Albert Mehrabian’s theory of non verbal communication, and Deborah Tannen’s theory of individual and social differences in language use. Marcus Lantz’s and Magnus Boding Hansen’s moderator type the ambassador will be suggested to function in accordance with Hal Kock’s democratic ideal. The communication scholar Martin Carcasson’s Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) works with another set of tools to handle socalled “wicked arguments” in local citizen debates.My conclusion embraces education as a means of addressing the democratic legitimacy crisis that affects public debate. It is my hope to point out the symptoms, the consequenses, and future possibilities for how to promote, not hinder, a useful democratic debate.

MA Thesis August 2018, Copenhagen University written by Mette Hafstrøm Kirkegaard, Master of Arts (Cand.mag,) in Rhetoric. BA in Philosophy.