International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 8; July 2011 73 Deliberation and Protest: A Closer Look at Social Fora dynamics Alessia Rochira (corresponding author) Department of Education University of Salento, Via Stampacchia 45, 73100 Lecce, Italy. E-mail: alessiale@hotmail.com, Phone: ++390832294706 Terri Mannarini Department of Education University of Salento Via Stampacchia 45, 73100 Lecce, Italy. E-mail: terrimannarini@hotmail.com, Phone: ++390832294706 Abstract The paper focuses on two key domains: the psychosocial dynamics of protest in social movements and deliberative democracy theory and practice. Explorative research on an Italian Social Forum has been carried out, aimed at: a) verifying the consistency and the correspondence between the construct of deliberative democracy and the interactive functioning of social fora; b) probing the factors underlying the “social psychology of protest” (Klandermans, 1997); c) integrating the two domains at an empirical level. Results lack generalization but provide useful indications to renew the theoretical assumptions concerning the psychosocial processes involved in deliberative interaction and protest. Key words: Collective Action, Psychology of Protest, Deliberative Democracy 1. Introduction In the last decade deliberative democracy has acquired increasing significance as a valuable alternative to the crisis in traditional representation devices. The basis of deliberation, as Habermas (1996) proposed in his seminal work, is discursive practice; through the argumentation of different points of view and opinions, citizens can modify their preferences and take consensual decisions (Dryzek & List, 2002). At present, deliberative democracy has its backers as well as its opponents; those who exalt the virtues of deliberative principles (Fung & Wright, 2000) face those who underline the risks and the pitfalls hidden in this very concept of democracy (Sanders, 1997). Deliberation’s desirability (Fishkin, 2000), in fact, is not per se a warranty for its correct application. Increasing attention, then, has been given to the empirical translation of principles and procedures (Gutmann & Thompson, 2000; Muhlberger, 2000). Several critiques have shed light on the risk of manipulation implied in deliberative process, as well as on the violation of equity, the systematic under-representation of certain categories and the quality of decisions. One of the most critical element is certainly represented by the argumentative skill of participants; as Sanders (1997) pointed out, some individuals are more skilled than others in supporting their own preferences by rational arguments. Another critical facet is the problem of issue framing. Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) unequivocally showed that no neutrality is achievable in information framing: on the contrary, motivations of proponents influence the way information is provided; different decisions are taken depending on whether gains or losses are emphasized. Both these points suggest that persons establishing and managing deliberative settings should be careful and fully aware of the discretionary power they have and of the risks of manipulation they take. Deliberation occurring in weakly institutionalized settings has recently awakened the interest of social movements scholars, since anti-global groups have began to put it into practice. Social movements scholars have repeatedly underlined the articulate and heterogeneous nature of the anti-global movement, but at the same time they have stressed the unitary identity that stems from this variegated archipelago of associations (Diani, 2000; Diani & Bison, 2004; Tarrow, 2005). The establishment of social fora is the direct consequence of this constitutive heterogeneity, since collective discussion is required to maintain unity. Thus, if social movements can be partly regarded as workshops of participative democracy, social fora represent real ‘field experiments’ (Della Porta, 2005; Della Porta & Andretta, 2002). Studying such experiences requires that two separate dynamics are taken into account: the dynamic of deliberation, and the dynamics of protest, which is the distinctive attribute of social movements and, generally speaking, is the aim as well as the rationale of collective action. From a social psychology perspective, Klandermans (1997; 2000; 2002) proposed the concept of ‘collective action structures’ to refer to cognitions that define the collective mental set in which participation is socially constructed.