The inclusion paradox of local deliberation: the case of Holland, Michigan’s LGBTQ+ non-discrimination controversy

ABSTRACT

In this essay, I analyze a protracted public controversy about whether Holland, Michigan should adopt an ordinance banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I argue that the controversy reveals what I am terming the inclusion paradox of local deliberation. Ordinance supporters’ efforts to foster ethos within the status quo’s political processes and identify with opponents worked to legitimize the very logics and assumptions that enable exclusion. I illustrate the inclusion paradox in how supporters build identification, what arguments they made, where they advanced their claims, and the fact that they did participate in the controversy. As such, the essay provides insights for rhetoric and argumentation scholars as well as advocates about how local rhetorics can enable or undermine inclusion and justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Public argument
• place
• sexuality
• religion
• rhetoric

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joshua H. Miller

Joshua H. Miller is an Assistant Professor in Communication Studies at Texas State University. He would like to thank Julia Grant, Erin Sahlstein Parcell, Kathryn Olson, Tom Salek, James Vining, Hilary Rasmussen, and Lindsay Timmerman for their help, support, and encouragement with this project. He would also like to thank Beth Innocenti and the reviewers for their generous support, guidance, and feedback.