What is a Jeffersonian dinner party?

I actually am not convinced that this is a good format for intellectual discussion based on past experiences I've had. If you have, say, ten people and are meeting for three hours, that gives 18 minutes of speaking time at most if speaking were divided equally. Of course it won't be and certain people in the group will disproportionately hog the talking time (btw, it is this kind of person who will be most excited about the format). The more nuanced your position, the more difficult it is to express in the short amount of time that you may have to speak. Also consider that some people are simply better at speaking in a group environment even if the quality of their arguments are weak (or at least one sided). One or two people can easily dominate the whole group. It can devolve into a series of lectures rather than a conversation. Or the entire conversation can be sidetracked by something inflammatory that hijacks the group's attention. These issues can be addressed in part with a great moderator, but a poor moderator is a disaster and you may not find out the moderator's weakness until there have already been major problems in the group.

It is no surprise to me that the format is attributed to Jefferson. He seems like he had exactly the personality that would thrive in this tightly controlled environment with rules that he set for his own benefit.

That being said, good intellectual conversation over a meal is one of life's great gifts. I just prefer other formats.

We know some people locally who worked in DC for a number of years and used to put on dinners like this. We went to one at their home a couple years ago where they had gathered a group from a variety of backgrounds for the purpose of discussion around community issues. While they hadn't filtered an agenda exactly, there had been some guidance on topics included in the invitation. While there are perhaps nuances to how these can be executed, over the past two hundred years since Jefferson I would say other groups have tried to achieve the same outcome through their "salons" and "chautauquas". In our case, the meal was served and casual conversation made, and then we moved into a separate room for a more formal, structured conversation directed by a moderator. It worked well, but also felt a bit like an echo chamber.

In our current political environment, I'm really not sure how these types of conversations actually make a difference. For example, in our area we have a group absolutely dedicated to destroying the local libraries and carrying that same mission into our public schools. These people have no intention of compromising or making peace. They don't even care who has the most votes or community support - it's their way or else. You have people attempting to put on community forums and discussions, but I don't see how you come to any resolve when one group has every intention of forming sides and browbeating the other until they get their way.

From the title, I thought it'd be dining solo — from John F. Kennedy's quip at his White House dinner for Nobel laureates: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." [0]

[0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-dinner-hon...

Be sure to check out the long-running Thomas Jefferson Hour podcast by humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson:

https://ltamerica.org/listen-2/

When he's not in character as Jefferson tackling contemporary or timeless questions, he interviews other scholars or answers listener questions.

Edit: Past episodes here: https://jeffersonhour.bandcamp.com/audio

Tangential, but speaking of Jefferson and dinner parties, apparently he was introduced to pasta while in Europe, had his own pasta machine, and served what was essentially macaroni and cheese at his dinner parties, including state dinners while president. Reportedly guests were unimpressed but he kept doing it anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT3DeFxyLms

I've participated in these through Unreasonable (whose guide is linked at the bottom). They didn't use a single table, but rather broke folks down into tables of 6 or 8. Each table ended up having very different conversations, but in general they ended up being meaningful. Some people would share extremely personal details about their lives/relationships/etc. It was a good way to get to know our cohort very well in a short period of time. It also didn't hurt that Unreasonable always served very, very good food!

I think the designation of a facilitator and the guideline for one conversation around the table makes a significant difference and lets everyone become better acquainted.

Priya Parker's "Art of Gathering" (https://www.amazon.com/Art-Gathering-Transformative-Meetings...) offers helful guidelines for planning a serious conversation

1. Purpose: a gathering starts with the invitation which should define its specific purpose. This purpose should be repeated at the formal start of the gathering.

2. Welcome List: deciding who to invite and who is not invited are critical steps in supporting a gathering’s purpose.

3. Venue: consider how it will help to support the purpose of the gathering. The size of the gathering will give it a different ambience with thresholds for a different experience roughly at 6, 12-15, 30 and 150.

4. Larger Purpose in Community: in addition to its primary purpose, a gathering should also serve to foster connections among attendees and increase a shared understanding of their needs and goals. This helps connect them with a community and a larger purpose that continues after the gathering.

5. Active Host: The host needs to act with “generous authority” to spell out and gently enforce clear rules of conduct to support the purpose of the gathering.

6. End cleanly: a gathering needs to have a clear end so that it finishes cleanly and energizes the attendees to fulfill its purpose.

I have blogged about facilitation and the value of roundtable conversation in

https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2019/08/02/key-lessons-from-pr...

https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2014/05/12/circle-the-chairs/

https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2014/09/15/guidelines-for-an-o...

Back in the day polarization was still within the confines of loyalty to the Republic, these days George Washington has been once again proven correct:

“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Great idea, but it does require a private dining room. This wouldn't work in a public space, like a restaurant, for the simple reason that "the Jefferson" cannot control attendance. To put it bluntly, when someone breaks the rules you will need to eject them. And that can only be done when you have full control over the space - so, a private dining room. This inherently requires capital, capital enough to own or rent such a room, which puts this modality out-of-range for a lot of people.

A different take on dining while discussing diverging perspectives, where apparently participants often find some common ground: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/series/dining-acros...

> Their version of polarization produced the enduring document that is the American Constitution.

> Thus, there’s some precedent that political polarization can produce world-class governance, if you can only figure out a way to still work together.

I don't think their era generated world-class governance. The actual machinery of government and its employment was clumsy and erratic.

The product of the era was world-class philosophical and experimental improvements in the theory of government that allowed better governance later.

It’s interesting that one of the rules and purported virtues of this dinner format is confidentiality. Anytime people who hold power meet, especially political positions but also even other economic power, there is vociferous demand these days for transparency about what is discussed at meetings. Think of the decades now of criticism of events like Bohemian Grove in the USA, or politicians’ sauna circles in Finland.

The extreme partisanship of that era was not long after the Constitution was written, and Jefferson was a partisan as anyone. They agreed that factionalism was bad in theory, but they were powerless to stop themselves.

Given the historical baggage, I think it’s unfortunate that they named this dinner format after Jefferson? There’s no clear idea of how he did it and they are reinventing it anyway. I guess they think it sounds classy?

I really like the format, it helps to humanize the participants and generate empathy and relaxation. It feels like people just don't know how to disagree, and would rather wall themselves off from those they don't agree with, figuratively and literally. I also wonder what a "speed debating" meetup would look like.

What other formats of dinner parties exist? Google is practically useless here, as all I get is recipes and menu templates!

One of the more annoying/insufferable episodes of "Billions"...

I was at an event where one of these was proposed. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, which felt deeply wrong to not consider to several of us and we left.