Abstract
Listening is an important feature of policy making and democratic politics. Yet in an era of increased polarisation the willingness and capacity of citizens to listen to each other, especially those they disagree with, is under strain. Drawing insights from a divisive community conflict over proposed coal seam gas development in regional Australia, this article examines how citizens listen to each other in a polarised controversy. The analysis identifies four different listening practices that citizens enact in a polarised public sphere, including (1) enclave listening between like-minded citizens; (2) alliance listening across different enclaves; (3) adversarial listening between citizens on opposing sides of the debate to monitor opponents; and (4) transformative listening where citizens listen selectively to other community members with the intention of changing their views. The article argues that all four listening practices fulfil important democratic functions in polarised debates such as enhancing the connective, reflective and communicative capacity of the public sphere. Notwithstanding these democratic contributions, under polarised conditions participatory interventions may be required to enhance the prospects of listening across difference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this article, the public sphere is understood in Habermasian terms as “public conversation” composed of “mutually interlocking networks and associations of deliberation, contestation and argumentation” (Benhabib 1996 emphasis in original).
Some scholars take issue with Barber’s emphasis on listening for commonality (e.g. Sanders 1997; Young 1996). However, Mansbridge and Latura (2016) contend that many democratic theorists have not fully appreciated Barber’s ideas on listening, particularly his emphasis on the need to continue to talk and to continue to listen in adversarial contexts.
The controversy surrounding the NGP remains unresolved. In early 2017, Santos lodged its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the state government of New South Wales (NSW) for the project, attracting over 23,000 public submissions—many of which were from outside the region, including 200 from overseas (NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2017).
Interviewee #4, 22.11.15.
Interviewee #44, 8.6.17.
Interviewee #41, 7.6.17.
Interviewee #16, 24.11.15.
Interviewee #25, 1.12.15.
Interviewee #37, 1.3.17.
Interviewee #37, 1.3.17.
The NGP covers land of Gomeroi people. Various spellings including Gamilaroi, Gamilaraay, Gamilaroi and Kamilaroi (see AIATSIS, n.d.).
Interviewee #38, 17.3.17.
Interviewee #22, 6.6.17.
Interviewee #22, 6.6.17.
Here, our focus is on surveillance between citizens, rather than that undertaken by corporations or governments, for example who use webwatchers and social media to follow and pre-empt the activities of problematic activists and social movements (e.g. Lubbers 2015). We also recognise citizens engage in vertical surveillance listening, for example listening to what relevant decision-makers are saying/not saying about a particular issue. Our interest though here in on horizontal surveillance between citizens.
Interviewee # 4, 8.6.17.
Interviewee #9, 7.6.17.
Interviewee #21, 6.6.17.
Interviewee #45, 9.6.17.
Interviewee #40, 7.6.17.
References
AIATSIS. (n.d.). Gamilaroi. https://aiatsis.gov.au/languages/gamilaroi. Accessed May 11, 2018.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bassel, L. (2017). The politics of listening: Possibilities and challenges for democratic life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship (1st ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Calder, G. (2011). Democracy and listening. In M. Crumplin (Ed.), Problems of democracy: Language and speaking (pp. 125–135). Oxford: Inter-disciplinary Press.
Chan, G. (2017). CSG’s last stand? In Narrabri everyone has a stake in the farming v mining fight. The Guardian, 23 May. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/23/csg-last-stand-narrabri-farming-mining-fight. Accessed May 24, 2017.
Coles, R. (2004). Moving democracy: Industrial areas foundation social movements and the political arts of listening, traveling, and tabling. Political Theory, 32(5), 678–705.
Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., & Lacey, J. (2015). Strange bedfellows or an aligning of values? Exploration of stakeholder values in an alliance of concerned citizens against coal seam gas mining. Land Use Policy, 42, 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.014.
Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903003270.
Denman-Cleaver, T. (2013). Listen here: The role of narrative and performance dialogue in enabling empathy. https://openlab.ncl.ac.uk/empathy/files/2013/11/Denman_Cleaver.pdf.
Dobson, A. (2012). Listening: The new democratic deficit. Political Studies, 60(4), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00944.x.
Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dreher, T. (2009). Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice. Continuum, 23(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903015712.
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018). No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ercan, S. A. (2017). From polarisation to pluralisation: A deliberative approach to illiberal cultures. International Political Science Review, 38(1), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115619465.
Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Dryzek, J. S. (2018). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy and Politics. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318x15200933925405.
Forester, J. (1988). Planning in the face of power. California: University of California Press.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New York: Psychology Press.
Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37(4), 995–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hendriks, C. M., Duus, S., & Ercan, S. A. (2016). Performing politics on social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 1102–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1196967.
Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lacey, K. (2013). Listening publics: The politics and experience of listening in the media age (1st ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Ladd, A. E. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impacts from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the Haynesville Shale. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28(2), 56–89.
Lindell, M., Bächtiger, A., Grönlund, K., Herne, K., Setälä, M., & Wyss, D. (2017). What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12162.
Lubbers, E. (2015). Undercover research: Corporate and police spying on activists. An introduction to activist intelligence as a new field of study. Surveillance and Society; Newcastle upon Tyne, 13(3/4), 338–353.
Macnamara, J. (2017). Creating a “Democracy for everyone”: Strategies for increasing listening and engagement by government. Ultimo: The London School of Economics and Political Science and University of Technology Sydney.
Mansbridge, J., & Latura, A. (2016). The polarization crisis in the United States and the future of listening. In T. Norris (Ed.), Strong democracy in crisis: Promise or peril? (pp. 29–54). London: Lexington Books.
Metze, T. (2014). Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.941462.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (2017). [Media release] Community views on Narrabri Gas Project to be addressed. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/News/2017/Community-views-on-Narrabri-Gas-Project-to-be-addressed. Accessed June 21, 2017.
Pfetsch, B. (2018). Dissonant and disconnected public spheres as challenge for political communication research. Javnost—The Public, 25(1–2), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1423942.
Potter, B. (2014, June 28). Fractured: Coal seam gas and the battle for the Pilliga. The Australian Financial Review, p. 53.
Ransan-Cooper, H., Ercan, S. A., & Duus, S. (2018). When anger meets joy: How emotions mobilise and sustain the anti-coal seam gas movement in regional Australia. Social Movement Studies, 17(6), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1515624.
Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002.
Schultz, K., & McGinn, K. C. (2013). “No one cares about this community more than us”: The role of listening, participation, and trust in a small urban district. Urban Education, 48(6), 767–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912462709.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York: Routledge.
Simmons, R. (2011). Leadership and listening: The reception of user voice in today’s public services. Social Policy and Administration, 45(5), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00790.x.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strickler, R. (2017). Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Political Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917721371.
Stroud, N. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
Suiter, J. (2018). Deliberation in action: Ireland’s abortion referendum. Political Insight, 9(3), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041905818796576.
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Reprint edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
The Wilderness Society. (2013). Media Release: North West Alliance grows, new groups join to protect the region. 14 May. http://ccag.org.au/csg/north-west-alliance-grows-new-groups-join-to-protect-the-region/#sthash.1tvlI5dN.dpuf.
Victorian Women’s Trust. (2007). Our water mark: Australians making a difference in water reform. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Women’s Trust. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/51172642.
Vincent, E., & Neale. T. (eds.) (2016). Unstable relations: Indigenous people and environmentalism in contemporary Australia. UWA Publishing. https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/unstable-relations-indigenous-people-and-environmentalism-in-contemporary-australia. Accessed July 11, 2017.
Vromen, A., Xenos, M. A., & Loader, B. (2015). Young people, social media and connective action: From organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.933198.
Walton, A., & McCrea, R. (2017). Community wellbeing and local attitudes to coal seam gas development. Social baseline assessment: Narrabri project. CSIRO report. CSIRO Australia.
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 University Press: Princeton.
Acknowledgments
For their comments and suggestions on the previous versions of this paper, we would like to thank John S. Drzyek, Gerry Stoker and participants at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 29 August–1 September 2017. The research in this paper is funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Grant No. DP150103615.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hendriks, C.M., Ercan, S.A. & Duus, S. Listening in polarised controversies: a study of listening practices in the public sphere. Policy Sci 52, 137–151 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9343-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9343-3