Article published In: Argumentation in European Politics
Edited by Corina Andone and Bart Garssen
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1] 2022
► pp. 133–155
Prescribed argumentation, actual argumentation, reported argumentation
The management of argumentation in a public debate in France
Published online: 8 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
Abstract
This article starts from the observation that, in order to ensure their legitimacy, the modes of governance in
place in most Western democracies make more room for citizen participation in decision-making processes. The result is the
implementation of various participatory mechanisms, many of which seek to stimulate a citizen’s argumentative expression. Based on
a case study (the public debate on a gold mine project in French Guiana), we observe the norms that govern such participation
processes and their implementation in the argumentative exchanges.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The French experience of public debates and prescribed argumentation
- 2.1The NCPD: An institution with three missions
- 2.2Prescribed argumentation
- 2.3The debate on the gold mine in Guiana: David against Goliath?
- 2.4The data
- 3.Actual argumentation: Integration of the prescribed argumentation in the speech event
- 4.Actual argumentation: Principles put to the test
- 4.1Principle of equivalence
- 4.2Principle of transparency
- 4.3Inclusion principle
- 5.Discussion. Hesitation between two models: Participation / communication
- 6.Reported argumentation
- 7.Conclusions
- Notes
References
References (33)
Aakhus, Mark. 2013. “Deliberation
digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services.” Journal of
Argumentation in
Context 2(1): 101–126.
Amossy, Ruth. 2009. “Argumentation
in Discourse: A Socio-discursive Approach to Arguments.” Informal
Logic 29(3): 252–267.
Bacqué, Marie-Hélène, and Mario Gauthier. (2011). “Participation,
urbanisme et études urbaines. Quatre décennies de débats et d’expériences depuis ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ de S.R.
Arnstein.” Participations 11: 36–66.
Berger, Mathieu. 2014. “La
participation sans le discours.” Espaces Temps.net, Travaux. [URL]
Blatrix, Cécile. 2002. “Devoir
débattre. Les effets de l’institutionalisation de la participation sur les formes de l’action
collective.” Politix 15(57): 79–102.
Boy, Daniel, Dominique Donnet-Kamel, and Philippe Roqueplo. 2000. “Un
exemple de démocratie participative: la ‘conférence de citoyens’ sur les organismes génétiquement
modifiés.” Revue française de science
politique 50(4–5): 779–809.
Casillo, Ilaria. 2018. “La
procedura di dibattito pubblico francese: una pratica ventennale di democrazia partecipativa sulle grandi
opere.” In Il dibattito pubblico per infrastrutture utili, snelle e
condivise Manuale di applicazione della nuova legge, ed. by Fondazione
ItaliaDecide, 13–24. Catanzaro: Rubettino Editore.
. 2020. “Il
débat public francese: difesa dell’ambiente o difesa della democrazia? Una lettura critica dell’offerta
istituzionale di democrazia partecipativa in Francia.” Istituzioni del federalismo, Rivista di
studi giuridici e
politici 31: 635–656.
Dewey, John. 2010. Le
Public et ses
problèmes (Trans.). Paris: Gallimard. (Original
work published in 1927).
Doury, Marianne and Marie-Cécile 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. Berne: Peter Lang.
Doury, Marianne, and Christian Plantin. 2015. “Une
approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation.” Argumentation et Analyse du
Discours 151. [URL].
Doury, Marianne, Matthieu Quet, and Assimakis Tseronis. 2015. “Le
façonnage de la critique par les dispositifs. Le cas du débat sur les
nanotechnologies.” Semen 391: 39–58.
Floridia, Antonio. 2012. La
democrazia deliberative: teorie, processi,
sistemi. Roma: Carocci Editore.
Gourgues, Guillaume, Sandrine Rui, and Sezin Topçu (eds.). 2013. Participations 21. (“Critique
de la participation et gouvernementalité.”)
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Raison
et
légitimité (Trans). Paris: Payot. (Original
work published in 1973).
Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit,
Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and
States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2014. Débattre.
L’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique
verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Joss, Simon, and John Durant. 1995. “Introduction.” In Public
participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe, ed.
by Simon Joss, and John Durant, 9–13. Londres: Science Museum.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2017. Les
débats de l’entre-deux-tours des élections présidentielles françaises. Constantes et évolutions d’un
genre. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “Embodied
and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy
debates.” Journal of
Pragmatics 461: 39–68.
Plantin, Christian. 2010. “Les
instruments de structuration des séquences
argumentatives.” Verbum 32(1): 31–51.
Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2000. “Public
participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, Technology and Human
Values 251: 3–29.
. 2005. “A
typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, Technology, and Human
Values 301: 251–290.
