"Reasonable hostility": Its usefulness and limitation as a norm for public hearings

Abstract

"Reasonable hostility" is a norm of communicative conduct initially developed by studying public exchanges in education governance meetings in local U.S. communities. In this paper I consider the norm's usefulness for and applicability to a U.S. state-level public hearing about a bill to legalize civil unions. Following an explication of reasonable hostility and grounded practical theory, the approach to inquiry that guides my work, I describe Hawaii's 2009, 18-hour public hearing and analyze selected segments of it. I show that this particular public hearing raised demands for testifiers on the anticivil union side of the argument that reasonable hostility does not do a good job of addressing. Development of a norm of communication conduct for this practice, as well as others, must engage with the culture and timespecific beliefs that a society holds, beliefs that will shape not only how to argue but what may be argued and what must be assumed about particular categories of persons. © Karen Tracy.