Who Talks and Who Does Not? Gender Differences in Everyday Political Talk

• In Event: Lightning Round: Research in Five: Graduate Students I

Abstract

The inclusion of different voices and standpoints into the process of governing is a core principle of democracy. Especially norms of deliberative democracy mandate the inclusion of all viewpoints from affected citizens in spheres of formal and informal political discourses. Through deliberation, citizens cultivate orientations toward the democratic system, to inform themselves, and to make sense of complicated issues. This criterion of inclusion is central to the normative goal underlying this theoretical perspective: to ensure a heightened level of legitimacy of democratic decisions and the improvement of the political output. The inclusion of all affected parties in the decision-making process through means of deliberative processes ensures their understanding of the outcome and, therefore, its legitimacy. Second, the confrontation of different arguments leads citizens who participate in forms of political discussions to reflect on their positions and to develop their viewpoints further. This process creates the possibility to revise and adapt one’s arguments to differing views to still be considered in the competition of ideas. This improves the overall quality of potential outcomes of democracy.

However, there are substantive differences in deliberative participation between citizens, including differences between men and women. This mirrors the often systemic exclusion of female viewpoints in political spheres, leading to policy outcomes that are negligent of women’s issues. While these differences have been thoroughly investigated in spheres of formal political discussions, we know very little about men and women’s behavior regarding everyday political talk. This informal nature of political talk encompasses discussions in everyday situations such as conversations among spouses at home, friends at the coffee table, or colleagues at work. Although the role of everyday political talk in the framework of deliberative democracy is less clear than more institutionalized forms of discussion, it is highly relevant for the study of deliberation in two ways. First, it is the most frequent sort of political talk. Second, it serves as an incubator where political arguments can be refined before they are voiced more publicly. Third, the low-level entrance barrier serves as an opportunity to observe the undistorted effect of individuals’ motivations on their engagement in the democratic discourse. The observation of inequalities on this level of engagement serves as a litmus test for the challenges the theoretical framework faces in comparison with the empirical observation of citizens’ everyday experience in a modern democracy.

In a first step, I give a detailed account of the observed differences in men's and women’s participation in informal political talk. This includes differences in their numbers of discussion partners, of often they discuss politics with others and their behavior in the process of discussions. In a second step, I present a model of citizens’ participation in everyday political talk that is suitable to inquire into the level of inequalities in men’s and women’s participation in everyday political talk with explanatory factors. The model includes three mediating factors, which are the potential origins of the differences. These factors are the number of opportunities for discourse, the level of civic skills to do so, and the individual’s motivation, both positive and negative.

Leveraging data from a unique local face-to-face survey (n = 1.600) about citizens’ deliberative practices in a medium-sized German city, results show that differences between men's and women’s behavior differ mostly in respect to conversations with weak ties. While the gender gap disappears regarding discussions with people in the closer social circle of citizens, it stays pronounced with weaker ties.

The results help us to identify in which spheres of everyday political talk differences between women and men exist. The varying levels of inequality and the effects of the mediators indicate to what degree gender plays a role in deliberative democracy. The level of pluralism in viewpoints voiced in informal political discussion serves as an important indicator to what degree everyday deliberation can facilitate a higher quality of political output and the reformation of prevalent social and political structures.

Author

• Manuel Neumann, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research