Though it is often a casual byproduct of social interactions, everyday political talk is nonetheless vital to deliberative democracy. In this chapter, we review current empirical research establishing the importance of everyday political talk. We also explore the psychology of everyday talk, explaining how over time everyday political talk encourages citizens to clarify their preferences, and develop understandings of politics that reflect their interests and identities. Finally, we probe the links between everyday talk, the media, and the formation of public opinion. Overall, we argue that by developing in citizens both a broad understanding of politics and a language to discuss it, everyday political talk prepares them for political action, including deliberation in more formal settings.

Objectives American political elites heatedly disagree over voter identification (ID) laws. Yet, the issue is not particularly polarizing at the mass level. Previous research mostly explores voter ID attitude correlates and how those policies shape turnout, but offers less insight into how average citizens understand the issue. We explore competing partisan frames on voter ID—voter fraud and voter suppression—that advance subtexts about partisan motivations and whom these laws benefit. Method We use an original nationally representative survey to examine how partisan motivated reasoning, strategic reasoning, and moral conviction influence voter ID frame perceptions and policy support among partisans. Results For average partisans, strategic reasoning and moral conviction significantly influence frame perceptions and voter ID attitudes, though not always along predicted party lines. Motivated reasoning proves inconsequential. Conclusions Republicans have won the “framing war” over voter ID, largely neutralizing the Democratic voter suppression frame, even among average Democrats.

Based on social comparison and social identity theory, we argue that average partisans in contemporary U.S. politics view elections as group competitions in which partisan identities are at stake. Using nationally representative survey data, we demonstrate that stronger partisan identities, more than ideological identities or issue preferences, are associated with a greater sense of partisan hostilityspecifically, party rivalry and anger. That hostility mediates the impact of partisan identities on political attitudes and actions. As a result, strong partisan identifiers hold the most hostile and uncivil attitudes and are the most likely to participate in elections. Thus, in the context of elections, the behavior of partisans resembles that of sports team members acting to preserve the status of their teams rather than thoughtful citizens participating in the political process for the broader good. We explore the implications of these findings for the current state of American politics.

Talking and listening to political opponents is central to the proper functioning of deliberative democracy. But the social identity dynamics of partisan intergroup conflict make party identifiers in the US - Democrats and Republicans alike - less likely to engage in these activities. We argue that those group dynamics are gendered such that men are more sensitive than women to intergroup conflict and competition. Consequently, men are more likely to experience "intergroup anxiety" at the prospect of political interaction with partisan opponents. Using survey data from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study and experimental data, we found that men with higher intergroup anxiety were more likely than women to avoid cross-party political discussion, not listen when they did engage in such conversations, and reject information from outparty leaders. These results highlight the critical role that partisan social identities play in everyday democratic citizenship, but also emphasize the important and neglected gender aspect of mass interparty dynamics in the USA.

Abstract Political theory has been engaged in an ongoing debate about the role of recognition in liberal democracies. Recognition demands, among other things, respect for all social groups and their fundamental way of life. A failure to fulfill this demand can lead to discrimination and prejudice, and ultimately impedes effective democratic citizenship. This chapter argues that these claims are ultimately psychological in nature, and that psychological science provides evidence to support a politics of recognition. Specifically, psychological research suggests that misrecognition impedes democratic citizenship, and that meeting the demands of recognition can actually enhance the dynamics of democratic deliberation.

In democratic theory, the practice of discussing public affairs has been associated with desirable consequences for citizenship and democracy. We use Anglo-American survey data to examine twelve hypotheses about psychological foundations for four general conditions that such discussions might promote: autonomous citizens, political legitimacy, good representation and democratic communities. Our data combine detailed measures of public discussion with measures of more of its hypothesized civic consequences than have heretofore been available. They also enable us to probe, using specialized samples, causal inferences suggested by our analyses of random samples in our British and American communities. Six of the hypotheses are supported, including at least one regarding each of the four general liberal democratic conditions we investigate.

'Everyday political talk' is an increasingly important part of what Jane Mansbridge characterizes as 'deliberative systems' in industrialized democracies. However, how is it practiced by ordinary people? And how does their practice affect democracy and citizenship? Our paper addresses four questions: (1) How should everyday political talk be conceptualized as a component of the 'deliberative system'? (2) What can and cannot be learned by studying normative topics like deliberation empirically? (3) How can we investigate such everyday talk using the methodologies of survey research, focus groups and content analysis? (4) What have we learned in our own research programs from each methodological approach?

It is a fundamental ideal of liberal democracy that all citizens should enjoy fully equal citizenship. Yet many minorities are still routinely ignored, excluded, patronized, and not regarded as full members of the political community. This denial of equal standing undermines their equal citizenship. Liberalism and Cultural Pluralism each advocate strategies to improve this situation. Their arguments build upon expectations about how citizens should, can, and do understand membership in the political community. Our survey and focus group data from six matched communities in the United States and Great Britain show how citizens’ understandings of membership in the political community incorporate communitarian attitudes that impede the liberal and cultural pluralist projects.

Journal Article Citizenship in the Age of Liberalism Get access Donald D. Searing, Donald D. Searing Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Pamela Johnston Conover, Pamela Johnston Conover Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Ivor Crewe Ivor Crewe Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 56, Issue 4, 1 October 2003, Pages 634–651, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsg107 Published: 01 October 2003

What is the deliberative potential of everyday political discussion? We address this question using survey data and qualitative data collected in six communities in the United States and Britain. Our findings suggest that political discussion is infrequently public, modestly contested and sometimes marred by inequality. But the factors inhibiting more deliberative discussions - structural, cultural and motivational in nature - should be amenable to some change, particularly through education.

Most conceptual research on equality revolves around theoretical texts or legal theory and decisions, thus reflecting the thought of legal, political, or cultural elites. But in a democratic polity, we must attend to the political thought not just of politicos and academics, but ordinary citizens as well. In terms of its political significance, “What does equality mean” requires answering the question: what does equality mean to the mass public? We thus probe the meanings of “gender equality” in the public mind, using a unique set of questions included in the National Election Studies 1991 Pilot Study, and con-textualized within the literatures of feminist and legal theory and political psychology and public opinion. Most importantly, we distinguish among “empirical” and “normative” equality and discontent and among the domains of the polity, economy, and family; feature the problem of “equality” versus “sameness” and consider the relationship of these orientations to people's own structural circumstances and their other policy and political attitudes. Among the key findings, empirical and normative equality and discontent are functionally different and grounded differently in people's everyday experiences; they distinguish among different domains of life and, especially, between public and private; and there are generational differences in the relationship of “equality” to “sameness.” We discuss substantive and methodological implications.

The recent changes sweeping across the European landscape have focused attention on the nature of political identities – ethnic, citizen, national and European – the relationships among them, and their effects on European politics. In the east, the development of stronger national identities seems inevitable given the focus on state-building. But across Europe, national identities are being challenged from below by the growing potency of regional and ethnic identities, and from above by the emerging reality of European identity. It is unclear, then, whether European integration will create a meaningful European identity or simply encourage cross-national regional groups and ethnic groups within European states to develop their own identities and seek greater autonomy. This is particularly problematic for Eastern Europe where the revitalisation of national identities may inhibit the emergence of the European identity. Thus our key analytic question is: how can these different kinds of political identities fit together? Can they be substituted for one another? Are they inevitably in conflict with one another or can they coexist comfortably together? And what are the implications of this for East European politics?KeywordsSocial IdentityEthnic IdentityNational IdentityCommon GoodPolitical DiscourseThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Journal of Political PhilosophyVolume 3, Issue 2 p. 133-165 Citizen Identities and Conceptions of the Self* Pamela Johnston Conover, Pamela Johnston Conover Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillSearch for more papers by this author Pamela Johnston Conover, Pamela Johnston Conover Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.1995.tb00032.xCitations: 26 † This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, September 1993, Washington D.C. I gratefully acknowledge the Spencer Foundation's generous support of the larger citizenship project of which the collection of these data is a pact. I also appreciate the helpful comments of several anonymous reviewers, Susan Bickford, Beth Theiss-Moore, and especially my two co-investigators in the citizenship project–Ivor Crewe and Donald Searing. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume3, Issue2June 1995Pages 133-165 RelatedInformation