Social Influence and Politics
Fair and unbiased hall-style debates are the current issues nowadays. People want to express their standpoint and viewpoint freely and not be afraid of being criticized. Open space for debates is an excellent opportunity to voice concerns and issues that are much spoken about nowadays. Hall-style debate represents negotiation where everybody has a chance to participate, raise matters they are worried about and get satisfying feedback.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
It stands to reason that maintaining neutral and fair hall-style debates is difficult, as individuals are under the seizure of social mainstream influences. The social endorsement frame implies a correspondence to central social norms and morals expressed by people. In case a person has an opposite standpoint that differs from a typical one, an individual might face harsh criticism as they do not squeeze into this social frame. Open and neutral debates are a chance to crack long-standing boundaries and armors in terms of expressing opinions freely. “League of Women Voters” is an example of holding fair hall negotiations where women manage to minimize social influences and impacts on their true selves by voicing their perspectives.
Perception and Bias
Social context is the profound element influencing people’s behavioral patterns in a debate setting. Social context nurtures arguments about behavioral and influences, as well as culture projection at the totality of any societal belief systems, social practices, mores that make human beings unique from others (Kassin et al.2017). People might struggle with several obstacles during a debate setting, such as misunderstandings, misconceptions, and pervasive criticism as their perspectives differ from others’. There might be disputes and deliberations among debate participants as they cannot come up with a mutual understanding because of different social backgrounds.
As a political consultant, I have to persuade women to participate in fair and neutral public debates, providing freedom of opinion expression. Women have to minimize all fears and concerns and voice their real visions concerning current issues held during hall-style discussions. Expressing an unbiased standpoint in public is an advent of a democratic society, where people are not being evaluated in a negative way.
- Uninteresting social agenda for women to participate;
- Badly-organized social policy ascertaining females to voice their concerns;
- The absence of rewards (social status; social position), encouraging women to stage;
- Disputes and deliberations among women;
- The risk of escalating tensions among women because of their individual social backgrounds.
Project Budget / Spending Estimate
As LWV is a non-profit organization, a political consultant does not have a particular sum of investments. The capital of LWV is based on women’s donations; the more they donate, the better debates will be organized.
Guidelines for Fair Public Debates
Public debate is considered to be a significant part of challenging and changing big systems. While modern and developing nations are forming, there are a lot of public debates and discussions. The primary purpose is to make people raise essential issues at federal, state, and local levels. The main goal of a political consultant is to let all participants voice their demands and expectations freely without being afraid of criticism and social disendorsement. As women’s social position was questionable back then, and their rights were violated, females want to be involved in open and fair negotiations in public meetings. A political consultant has to view this perspective of women’s participation in debates through different lenses.
Lens 1: Decision-Making
A fair and neutral debate structure has to focus on every single participant’s needs and desires. Taking into account verified social contexts of debate members, a political consultant has to choose an appropriate debate format satisfying all women’s needs and expectations. The idea is that debate members express their standpoints and insight utilizing their rights to freely voice their concerns referring to the constitutional law of the US governmental structure.
as little as 3 hours
Lens 2: Deal-Making
Every single social institution has to evaluate participants’ interests towards a beneficial outcome of a group. It is a case of a deal-making decision, where debate members are motivated to act to highlight the beneficial group outcomes. Following this philosophy, debate participants feel free to express their standpoints to achieve mutual understanding with other debate members. In this instance, the essence of social context nature (culture, relationships, social groups) subsides and takes a minor role. Voting fails in the deal-making process if voters do not have incentives, be it personal or public, to show up; or when political negotiations are held behind closed doors.
Lens 3: Culture- Shaping
Every public institution needs a particular culture; a neutral debate depends on specific values (curiosity, rigor). The fair and unbiased discussion must create a culture for debate participants, not reflection on previous long-standing social, behavioral patterns and standpoints. A uniformity of ideas is welcomed as debate members have to reach a mutual destination point. Still, in the case of opposite opinion expressions, females are listened to, and their prepositions are taken into account (Pelletier & Fellows, 2021).
Guidelines for Media Coverage
- to inform and create awareness;
- no panic or confusion among the public;
- fake news and fake narrative exposition;
- verification of all information prior to presentation or publication (Shomron, 2021).
Guidelines for Fair Public Debate
Psychological perspectives and methods can be divided into several groups:
- Macro-level (institutions, such as the economy or family);
- Meso-level (club affiliations, debates, meetings);
- Micro-level (individuals) (Rohall et al., 2021).
A political consultant dealing with fair and neutral debate deals with meso-psychology, where social context ranges from a particular group of people presenting their interests to a significant culture and social conditions that are typical of society as a whole. While maintaining a fair and neutral debate, psychology performs as a natural bridge between a subject of open discussions and psychology itself, explaining social forces in voters’ political standpoints.
Creating a well-organized format for a fair and neutral debate, a political consultant has to realize the way honest discussions might affect voter perception. Being involved in open talks and projecting personal standpoints, debate participants might face harsh criticism towards them on the opposite party’s behalf. To avoid escalating issues and tensions, participants might unite with other members to express the ordinary mind or perspective. A moderator is a manager of this event, guiding and leading voters in the right direction, providing them with credible sources of information to discuss.
Social and mainstream media are the guarantee that the subject of the debate will be communicated to the public. Social and mainstream media make people feel that this subject is labeled as essential and needs a lot of attention. A political consultant has to use visuals to display debate participants a clear-cut depiction of world realities. A well-organized debate structure predisposes to fairness and objectivity among individuals taking part in the discussions.
Before any proposal to manage the audience’s behavior, a political consultant has to determine any risks they might face during the open debate. People might demonstrate unethical, unacceptable behaviors during settings. The political consultant has to prohibit particular participant behavior patterns to stimulate the positive micro-environment of discussions.
Prohibited participant behavior patterns:
- High alertness;
- Racism/ sexism/feminism projection;
- Riot fomenting;
- Strict criticism of authorities.
To avoid escalating issues and tensions among women, the political consultant has to make several sessions and settings targeting people from a concrete social class or segment. This method might anticipate possible disputes causing the social context prerequisites.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., Markus, H. R., McBain, K. A., Williams, L. (2019). Social Psychology. Australian & New Zealand Edition. Cengage AU.
Pelletier, G., & Fellows, L. K. (2021). Viewing orbitofrontal cortex contributions to decision-making through the lens of object recognition. Behavioral Neuroscience, 135 (2), 182-186.
Rohall, D. E., Milkie, M. A., & Lucas, J. W. (2021). Social psychology: Sociological perspectives. Waveland Press.
Shomron, B. (2021). The capability ‘to be secure’: Media coverage of African asylum seekers during Covid-19 in Israel. Journal of Refugee Studies, 13 (2), 11-35.