What do you think?
Rate this book
Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
'Religion and politics', as the old saying goes, 'should never be discussed in mixed company.'And yet fostering discussions that cross lines of political difference has long been a central concern of political theorists. More recently, it has also become a cause célèbre for pundits and civic-minded citizens wanting to improve the health of American democracy. But only recently have scholars begun empirical investigations of where and with what consequences people interact with those whose political views differ from their own. Hearing the Other Side examines this theme in the context of the contemporary United States. It is unique in its effort to link political theory with empirical research. Drawing on her empirical work, Mutz suggests that it is doubtful that an extremely activist political culture can also be a heavily deliberative one.
184 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
September 3, 2015
I enjoyed the ideas of this book but I didn't particularly enjoy reading it. This was an extremely technical academic book with a lot of academia wording. I am not going to do the usual review of Hearing the Other Side. I'll be honest, it feels too much like homework to do a normal review, and I'm just not in the mood to do it. Instead here are some things I learned while reading Hearing the Other Side:
1. Deliberative democracy(talking to the opposition frequently about politics) has gone down. Politics used to be something talked at dinner tables but has become something that is shunned to talk about in mixed parties.
2. The more money, higher education, and less minority you are, the more likely you will surround yourself with like minded individuals and you will only hear the political viewpoints from that side. Minorities, less educated, and the lower on the economic scale you are the more likely you will interact with people of opposing political views.
3. Your job is the most likely place you will interact with people of different political affiliations but the desire to talk about it is extremely low because the risk of talking politics at work is more important than actually talking about them.
4. Within social networks there is a strong desire not to talk about politics because we value our social interactions higher than our political ideas.
5. For many individuals that come in contact with a lot of differing political opinions in their social networks, the idea of talking about politics and choosing a side is a high point of anxiety. They would rather either not vote or wait until the last minute to vote. They also devalue the political process in general to try to not be forced into taking a side.
6. The more avoidant a person is, the less they will be involved in the political process and speak their political minds.
7. A perfect deliberative democracy is impossible. We can't have close relationships with people we frequently disagree with. We want political disagreements that have no repercussions for people's personal relationships and this just doesn't exist.
8. The only way that we remove the chance of repercussions on people's personal relationships when it comes to politics is to either devalue politics or only have conversations between like minded individuals. Neither one of these things are ideal for a democracy. As polarization between opposing political views has become more important to the every day American, they have chosen to devalue relationships with opposing political members.
I think of everything in this book that I read, the idea that political anxiety for people caught between social networks of opposing view points is what spoke to me the most. I feel this almost on a constant basis. I have friends that are incredibly liberal but I have family members that are conservative. I belong to a conservative church but I have some liberal ideas. All of this has caused me to devalue politics in general.
I also believe that we are at a point in American politics where we are devaluing friendships with opposing political members instead of accepting the differences as just differences and not us vs them. Also, the idea that the other side are the "bad guys" and we are the "good guys" is highly frightening because this is the type of mentality before violence becomes a solution.
Anyway, I liked Hearing the Other Side. I got more of a better understanding of why I feel about politics the way that I do and why others take it as seriously as they do. I can now look at individuals and see their social network being the major reason why they have the opinions that they do. I can also see how the anonymity and the ease of confrontation that the internet allows, to see why politics on the internet seem so much more hostile than in person.
1. Deliberative democracy(talking to the opposition frequently about politics) has gone down. Politics used to be something talked at dinner tables but has become something that is shunned to talk about in mixed parties.
2. The more money, higher education, and less minority you are, the more likely you will surround yourself with like minded individuals and you will only hear the political viewpoints from that side. Minorities, less educated, and the lower on the economic scale you are the more likely you will interact with people of opposing political views.
3. Your job is the most likely place you will interact with people of different political affiliations but the desire to talk about it is extremely low because the risk of talking politics at work is more important than actually talking about them.
4. Within social networks there is a strong desire not to talk about politics because we value our social interactions higher than our political ideas.
5. For many individuals that come in contact with a lot of differing political opinions in their social networks, the idea of talking about politics and choosing a side is a high point of anxiety. They would rather either not vote or wait until the last minute to vote. They also devalue the political process in general to try to not be forced into taking a side.
6. The more avoidant a person is, the less they will be involved in the political process and speak their political minds.
7. A perfect deliberative democracy is impossible. We can't have close relationships with people we frequently disagree with. We want political disagreements that have no repercussions for people's personal relationships and this just doesn't exist.
8. The only way that we remove the chance of repercussions on people's personal relationships when it comes to politics is to either devalue politics or only have conversations between like minded individuals. Neither one of these things are ideal for a democracy. As polarization between opposing political views has become more important to the every day American, they have chosen to devalue relationships with opposing political members.
I think of everything in this book that I read, the idea that political anxiety for people caught between social networks of opposing view points is what spoke to me the most. I feel this almost on a constant basis. I have friends that are incredibly liberal but I have family members that are conservative. I belong to a conservative church but I have some liberal ideas. All of this has caused me to devalue politics in general.
I also believe that we are at a point in American politics where we are devaluing friendships with opposing political members instead of accepting the differences as just differences and not us vs them. Also, the idea that the other side are the "bad guys" and we are the "good guys" is highly frightening because this is the type of mentality before violence becomes a solution.
Anyway, I liked Hearing the Other Side. I got more of a better understanding of why I feel about politics the way that I do and why others take it as seriously as they do. I can now look at individuals and see their social network being the major reason why they have the opinions that they do. I can also see how the anonymity and the ease of confrontation that the internet allows, to see why politics on the internet seem so much more hostile than in person.
June 21, 2017
Hearing the Other Side is a technical academic book that hits at a paradox at the heart of democratic theory. Namely, exposure to alternative political views is strongly associated with lower levels of political participation. An educated citizen who understands the issues and alternative rationales for positions is less likely to actually vote. Discourse generates conflict; conflict generates ambiguity; ambiguity generates disengagement. Mutz uses a variety of surveys and experiments to probe the extent that Americans actually experience cross-cutting political dialog, and the impact of that dialog on attitudes, and finds that Americans are generally embedded in more homogeneous networks than we might expect, and that contrary naive models of political engagement, more heterogeneous networks lead to less engagement. She postulates a simple, and therefore likely true psychological mechanism, that the social costs of taking extreme and consistent political positions is not worth the resulting arguments.
In 2017, this book is approaching the status of a classic. It was published in 2006, and most of the research was done in the late 90s and early 2000s, which feels like some kind of vanished Paleozoic era, politically speaking. As such, the results are untainted one way or another by Facebook flamewars, twitter botnets, dank memes of the Communist or Fascist variety, and everything else that makes up politics in the present. I don't think any of these developments invalidate Mutz's point. The internet makes all of these discussions about deliberation vs Totally Destroying the Other Side much the same, but moreso.
Sadly, there are several interesting corollaries which are raised and not explored. More educated people live in the least diverse settings. Republicans are more extreme in their views than Democrats, even pre-Tea Party and Trump. The conclusion, that norms for hearing the other side should be more broadly distributed through society and not just confined to legislative elites who actually make policy, is a floppy statement out of line with the clarity and logic of the rest of the book. Still, this is a powerful and potent evidence-based look at why theories of liberal democracy are just that: theories.
In 2017, this book is approaching the status of a classic. It was published in 2006, and most of the research was done in the late 90s and early 2000s, which feels like some kind of vanished Paleozoic era, politically speaking. As such, the results are untainted one way or another by Facebook flamewars, twitter botnets, dank memes of the Communist or Fascist variety, and everything else that makes up politics in the present. I don't think any of these developments invalidate Mutz's point. The internet makes all of these discussions about deliberation vs Totally Destroying the Other Side much the same, but moreso.
Sadly, there are several interesting corollaries which are raised and not explored. More educated people live in the least diverse settings. Republicans are more extreme in their views than Democrats, even pre-Tea Party and Trump. The conclusion, that norms for hearing the other side should be more broadly distributed through society and not just confined to legislative elites who actually make policy, is a floppy statement out of line with the clarity and logic of the rest of the book. Still, this is a powerful and potent evidence-based look at why theories of liberal democracy are just that: theories.
December 1, 2019
Political theorists from John Stuart Mill, to Habermas, to Barber have argued that a strong democracy emanates from the ability of citizens to have meaningful discourse across lines of political difference. As Arendt puts it, being exposed to conflicting political views encourages an “ enlarged mentality” for imagining how one might think if they were standing in the other’s shoes. In short, more deliberation over differences will lead to more participatory citizens and a more robust democratic public space.
In a fascinating, brief treatise, Mutz puts this key assumption to rigorous empirical testing and finds little support. Indeed, among the many discouraging findings she presents is the fact that the more crosscutting deliberation citizens engage in, the less likely they are to participate in the political process, except for those with extreme views. As our discourse becomes more polarized and coarsened, the notion of the ideal democratic citizen who articulates their opinion, is aware of, and respects, others’ views, and who can engage in crosscutting political discussions without damaging their personal relationships, unfortunately seems to be nothing more than a chimera.
In a fascinating, brief treatise, Mutz puts this key assumption to rigorous empirical testing and finds little support. Indeed, among the many discouraging findings she presents is the fact that the more crosscutting deliberation citizens engage in, the less likely they are to participate in the political process, except for those with extreme views. As our discourse becomes more polarized and coarsened, the notion of the ideal democratic citizen who articulates their opinion, is aware of, and respects, others’ views, and who can engage in crosscutting political discussions without damaging their personal relationships, unfortunately seems to be nothing more than a chimera.
February 21, 2024
Anyone interested in navigating the intricacies of political communication, public opinion, and the functioning of democracy will find this book very helpful. Mutz explores the complex relationship between political discussion and democratic engagement, offering a nuanced examination of how exposure to differing political views influences individuals' political behavior and attitudes.
At the heart of Mutz's analysis is the distinction between two models of democracy: the deliberative democracy model, which emphasizes the importance of citizens engaging in reasoned debate and considering diverse viewpoints, and the participatory democracy model, which values high levels of political activism and engagement. Mutz challenges the conventional wisdom that increased exposure to contrary political opinions leads to better-informed and more tolerant citizens, capable of contributing to a more deliberative democracy. Through rigorous empirical research, Mutz presents evidence that suggests the opposite may be true. She finds that exposure to cross-cutting political discourse can actually decrease political participation, as it introduces doubt and reduces the certainty with which individuals hold their beliefs.
One of the book's significant contributions is its detailed exploration of the social psychology underlying political behavior. Mutz employs a range of data, including survey information and experimental findings, to illustrate how people's natural tendency to prefer associating with like-minded people limits their exposure to opposing viewpoints. This preference for echo chambers, especially in the context of modern media environments, presents a substantial challenge to the ideals of deliberative democracy.
Moreover, Mutz addresses the implications of her findings for democratic engagement. The discomfort and cognitive dissonance that often accompany exposure to divergent political opinions can lead to political ambivalence and reduced likelihood of political participation. This insight has profound implications for democratic theory and practice, suggesting that efforts to increase political deliberation by exposing individuals to opposing views may inadvertently dampen democratic engagement.
Mutz's book is not a pessimistic take on democracy but rather a call to realism. It encourages scholars, policymakers, and citizens to rethink how democratic ideals can be realized in practice. The book advocates for a nuanced understanding of political communication's role in democracy, acknowledging the limitations of current models and the need for innovative approaches to fostering political engagement and tolerance. When read carefully, her book prompts the reader(s) to think through the ways we as a society–individuals, institutions, media, organizations–engage diverse political point of view and actually participate in our democracy.
At the heart of Mutz's analysis is the distinction between two models of democracy: the deliberative democracy model, which emphasizes the importance of citizens engaging in reasoned debate and considering diverse viewpoints, and the participatory democracy model, which values high levels of political activism and engagement. Mutz challenges the conventional wisdom that increased exposure to contrary political opinions leads to better-informed and more tolerant citizens, capable of contributing to a more deliberative democracy. Through rigorous empirical research, Mutz presents evidence that suggests the opposite may be true. She finds that exposure to cross-cutting political discourse can actually decrease political participation, as it introduces doubt and reduces the certainty with which individuals hold their beliefs.
One of the book's significant contributions is its detailed exploration of the social psychology underlying political behavior. Mutz employs a range of data, including survey information and experimental findings, to illustrate how people's natural tendency to prefer associating with like-minded people limits their exposure to opposing viewpoints. This preference for echo chambers, especially in the context of modern media environments, presents a substantial challenge to the ideals of deliberative democracy.
Moreover, Mutz addresses the implications of her findings for democratic engagement. The discomfort and cognitive dissonance that often accompany exposure to divergent political opinions can lead to political ambivalence and reduced likelihood of political participation. This insight has profound implications for democratic theory and practice, suggesting that efforts to increase political deliberation by exposing individuals to opposing views may inadvertently dampen democratic engagement.
Mutz's book is not a pessimistic take on democracy but rather a call to realism. It encourages scholars, policymakers, and citizens to rethink how democratic ideals can be realized in practice. The book advocates for a nuanced understanding of political communication's role in democracy, acknowledging the limitations of current models and the need for innovative approaches to fostering political engagement and tolerance. When read carefully, her book prompts the reader(s) to think through the ways we as a society–individuals, institutions, media, organizations–engage diverse political point of view and actually participate in our democracy.
February 10, 2024
A fascinating investigation into political tolerance and cross-party affiliation in the '90s. I'd love to see an update on this book for today. I hear it may be on the way!
February 8, 2012
Excellent book. The author shows that we want people to talk about politics with their friends (especially with those we disagree with) and associates but also participate actively in electoral politics (voting, campaigning, etc.). She finds that one comes at the expense of the other. Those who talk about politics with networks who disagree with them vote and participate at much lower levels than those who talk only with those who disagree with them. So we basically have to pick: do we want people to engage in substantive political discourse or do we want people to vote? This book suggests that most of the time, people do one or the other, but not both.
March 18, 2009
A fascinating sociological account of the relationship between active, participatory political activity and cross-cutting political dialogue. Mutz presents the provacative findings of her research here, and questions whether deliberative and participatory modes of demoncracy inherently undermine each other.
November 8, 2013
This book gives you better understanding about how cross cutting political discussion effect political participation and engagement.Author's argument is sound and examples makes sense. if you want to learn more about how political discussion among non like minded people effect democratic process then you should read this book.
November 1, 2007
Take that deliberative democracy!
Want to Read
October 21, 2008Depending on how accessible this is, it sounds like a good book group choice.
October 21, 2012
My favorite book on Political Communication so far=)
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews