THE AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS' PARLIAMENT AND THE FUTURE OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY ADDITIONAL CHAPTER. ONLINE VERSION ONLY
IV ADDITIONAL CHAPTER. ONLINE VERSION ONLY ENGAGING DIFFERENCE THROUGH DIALOGUE: (ALMOST) IMAGINING A RACIALLY INCLUSIVE AUSTRALIA Katie Striley, Shannon Lawson, Laura Black, and John Gastil
Public deliberations like the Australian Citizens’ Parliament (ACP) are ideal places for transcending racial tensions, because deliberative discussion frameworks commonly invite dialogue.1 Nevertheless, important differences exist between the two concepts, and convening a deliberation does not necessarily cause dialogue to occur. Though it can be articulated in a variety of ways, public deliberation always concerns working together on a public issue to reach some kind of decision or recommendation. By contrast, dialogue is more about how we understand ourselves and others than about policy choices or decisions. It requires being profoundly open to others while maintaining one’s own sense of identity.2 Dialogue requires the courage to face one’s assumptions, the ability to remain open for true engagement with difference, which risks a sometimes unexpected personal transformation.3 Skeptics have questioned the ability of deliberative discussion frameworks like the ACP to trigger a genuine, dialogic engagement with minority perspectives.4 Formulated as a “difference critique” of deliberative theory, this view holds that ostensibly deliberative events