In:Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 75–100
The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation
The conférence de citoyens and the débat public on nanotechnologies in France
Published online: 10 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.04dou
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.04dou
In this chapter, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus conference (conférence de citoyens) and public hearing (débat public). While both methods are used in order to involve the public in decision making about science and technology policy, they differ in a number of aspects. Consensus conference seeks the active participation of a selected group of citizens who are expected to elaborate cooperatively a text of recommendations. Public hearing seeks to inform the public and to collect as many reactions by it as possible. In our analysis, we consider the characteristics of these two methods described in the social and political sciences literature as institutional constraints that can play a role in the production of argumentative discourse. We focus our study on the discourse produced in two concrete instances of the application of these participatory methods on the deliberation over the development of nanotechnology in France. More specifically, we study the expression of counter discourse and seek to describe how the participants in the two deliberation processes end up managing the institutional constraints in order to have their criticisms expressed. In this way, we propose a bottom-up approach to the theorization of the role that institutional context plays in the practice of argumentation, and discuss the descriptive adequacy of existing definitions of the deliberative genre within argumentation studies.
References (26)
Abelson, Julia, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, John Eyles, Patricia Smith, Elisabeth Martin, and Francois-Pierre Gauvin. 2003. “Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.” Social Science and Medicine 57: 239–251.
Amjarso, Bilal. 2010. Mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument: A conceptual and empirical study of the persuasiveness of a mode of strategic manoeuvring. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Andersen, Ida-Elisabeth, and Birgit Jaeger. 1999. “Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making.” Science and Public Policy 26: 331–340.
Apothéloz, Denis, Pierre-Yves Brandt, and Gustavo Quiroz. 1993. “The function of negation in argumentation.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 23–38.
Auer, Jeffery. 1962. “The counterfeit debates.” In The great debates: Background, perspective, effects, ed. by Sindey Kraus, 142–150. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Bourg, Dominique, and Daniel Boy. 2005. Conférences de citoyens, mode d’emploi. Paris: Editions Charles Léopold Mayer, Descartes et Cie.
Doury, Marianne, and Marie-Cecile Lorenzo-Basson. 2012. “Les rôles d’expert et de citoyen dans un dispositif de démocratie participative : la conférence des citoyens sur les OGM (France, 1998).” In Discours d’experts et d’expertise, ed. by Isabelle Léglise, and Nathalie Garric, 179–213. Berlin: Peter Lang.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2011. “In context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation.” Argumentation 25: 141–161.
Einsiedel, Edna F. 2008. “Public participation and dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–184. London: Routledge.
Einsiedel, Edna F., and Deborah I. Eastlick. 2000. “Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective.” Science Communication 21: 323–343.
Goodnight, Thomas. 1982. “The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 214–227.
Joss, Simon, and John Durant (eds). 1995. Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Richard Tutton. 2007. “Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue.” Social Studies of Science 37: 385–411.
Laurent, Brice. 2009. “Replicating participatory devices: The consensus conference confronts nanotechnology.” Papiers de Recherche du CSI n°018, Paris.
. 2010. Les Politiques des nanotechnologies. Pour un traitement démocratique d’une science emergente. Paris: Editions Charles Léopold Mayer, Vivagora.
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010. Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type: A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Macnaghten, Phil, Matthew Kearnes, and Brian Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?” Science Communication 27: 268–291.
Nielsen, Annika Porsborg, Jesper Lassen, and Peter Sandoe. 2007. “Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20: 13–35.
Revel, Martine, Loïc Blondiaux, Cécile Blatrix, Jean-Michel Fourniau, Bertrand Hériard, and Rémi Lefebvre (eds). 2007. Le débat public: Une expérience française de démocratie participative. Paris: La Découverte.
Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2000. “Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 25: 3–29.
. 2005. “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30: 251–290.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Tseronis, Assimakis. 2011. “From connectives to argumentative markers: A quest for markers of argumentative moves and of related aspects of argumentative discourse.” Argumentation 25: 427–447.