Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 20:2 (2021) ► pp.304–324

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Balancing the ideals of public participation

Discursive legitimation strategies of a disputed practice

ORCiD logo with link | University of Gothenburg
Published online: 13 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19098.sjo
Abstract
Local authorities in western societies increasingly initiate public participation processes despite criticism of these methods. To understand this development calls for in-depth studies of how the goals and values of public participation are articulated in practice. This paper analyzes the discursive legitimation strategies deployed by civil servants in twelve planning meetings for a participatory process aimed at mitigating violence in a Swedish suburb. The study draws on previous research on discursive legitimation, and presents the context-specific strategies of authorization, de-legitimation, cosmology and addressing of values. The analysis highlights that a core discursive tension in this practice arises from its need to seek mandate in the municipal structure, while the value discourses used to legitimize public participation build on a break from traditional bureaucracy. The study contributes to the broader literature on discursive legitimation in contemporary political contexts, with detailed empirical accounts of how a disputed practice is legitimized in interaction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Participation as a disputed practice
  • 2.Discourse and legitimation
    • 2.1Analytical framework
    • 2.2Previous research on discursive legitimation
  • 3.Material and method
    • 3.1The case study
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Authorization
    • 4.2De-legitimation (distancing to previous processes)
    • 4.3Cosmology
    • 4.4Addressing of values
  • 5.Summary and discussion
    • 5.1Balancing participatory ideals at the local level
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Aggerholm, Helle Kryger, and Birte Asmuß. 2016. “A Practice Perspective on Strategic Communication: The Discursive Legitimization of Managerial Decisions.” Journal of Communication Management 20 (3): 195–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg. 2018. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles (CA): Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amnå, Erik. 2006. “Playing with Fire? Swedish Mobilization for Participatory Democracy.” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (4): 587–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Rob, Leslie A. Baxter, and Kenneth N. Cissna. 2004. Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angouri, Jo, and Ruth Wodak. 2014. “‘They Became Big in the Shadow of the Crisis’. The Greek Success Story and the Rise of the Far Right.” Discourse & Society 25 (4): 540–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbalet, Jack M. 2001. Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumeler, Carmen. 2010. “Organizational Regimes of Emotional Conduct.” In Emotionalizing Organizations and Organizing Emotions ed by. Barbara Sieben, Åsa Wettergren. 272–292. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., Thomas Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor BooksGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, Laura W. 2015. “Dialogue”. In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy. 264–371. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornemark, Jonna. 2016. Medborgardialog – om det svåra i att mötas: Praktikers reflektioner om ett av demokratins viktigaste verktyg. Stockholm: Arkus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breit, Eric. 2014. “Remedy through Paradox? Constructions of Internal Legitimacy in a Publicly Discredited Organization.” Management Communication Quarterly 28 (4): 585–608. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruning, Stephen D., Melissa Dials, and Amanda Shirka. 2008. “Using Dialogue to Build Organization–Public Relationships, Engage Publics, and Positively Affect Organizational Outcomes.” Public Relations Review 34 (1): 25–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. 2018. “Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. by André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. 1–31: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpentier, Nico. 2014. “Participation as a Fantasy: A Psychoanalytical Approach to Power-Sharing Fantasies.” In Media Practice and Everyday Agency in Europe, ed. by Leif Kramp, Nico Carpentier, Andreas Hepp. 319–330, Bremen: Edition lumière.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Codó, Eva. 2011. “Regimenting discourse, controlling bodies: Disinformation, evaluation and moral categorization in a state bureaucratic agency.” Discourse & society 22 (6):723–742. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornwall, Andrea. 2004. “Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation.” iDS Bulletin 35 (2): 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dybel, Pawel. 2015. “Rational Dialogue or Emotional Agon? Habermas’s Concept of the Public Sphere and Mouffe’s Project of Radical Democracy.” In Democracy in Dialogue, Dialogue in Democracy: The Politics of Dialogue in Theory and Practice, ed. by Katarzyna Jezierska and Leszek Koczanowicz, 95–112, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erkama, Niina, and Eero Vaara. 2010. “Struggles over Legitimacy in Global Organizational Restructuring: A Rhetorical Perspective on Legitimation Strategies and Dynamics in a Shutdown Case.” Organization Studies 31 (7): 813–839. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Vol. 101. Cambridge: Polity pressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas, Kerrie R. H. 2013. “Citizen (in) Action: The Limits of Civic Discourse in City Council Meetings.” Critical Discourse Studies 10 (1): 81–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonseca, Pedro, and Maria João Ferreira. 2015. “Through ‘Seas Never Before Sailed’: Portuguese Government Discursive Legitimation Strategies in a Context of Financial Crisis.” Discourse & Society 26 (6): 682–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2015. “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and its Future.” Public Administration Review 75 (4): 513–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., and John S. Dryzek. 2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 34 (2): 219–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellquist, Alexander, and Martin Westin. 2019. Medborgardialog om konfliktfyllda samhällsfrågor: konsensus, agonism eller mobilisering? Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is it Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 55–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalberg, Stephen. 2005. Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karppinen, Kari, Hallvard Moe, and Jakob Svensson. 2008. “Habermas, Mouffe and Political Communication: A Case for Theoretical Eclecticism.” Javnost – The Public 15 (3): 5–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranert, Michael. 2018. “Political Myth as a Legitimation Strategy.” Journal of Language and Politics 17 (6): 882–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2010. The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A Multi-level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: LangGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michels, Ank, and Laurens De Graaf. 2017. “Examining citizen participation: local participatory policymaking and democracy revisited.” Local Government Studies 43(6):875–881. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mirhosseini, Seyyed-Abdolhamid. 2017. “Discursive Double-Legitimation of (Avoiding) Another War in Obama’s 2013 Address on Syria.” Journal of Language and Politics 16 (5): 706–730. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moisander, Johanna K., Heidi Hirsto, and Kathryn M. Fahy. 2016. “Emotions in Institutional Work: A Discursive Perspective.” Organization Studies 37 (7): 963–990. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (01): 7–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rojo, Luisa Martin, and Teun A. Van Dijk. 1997. “‘There was a Problem, and it was Solved!’: Legitimating the Expulsion of Illegal Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse.” Discourse & Society 8 (4): 523–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, and Stefan Slembrouck. 1996. Language, bureaucracy and social control. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverman, David. 2015. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SOU 2000:1. 2000. En uthållig demokrati!: Politik för folkstyrelse på 2000-talet: Demokratiutredningens betänkande. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SOU 2016:5. 2016. Låt fler forma framtiden!: Betänkande. Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suddaby, Roy, and Royston Greenwood. 2005. “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy.” Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (1): 35–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svensson, Jakob. 2008. ”Kommunikation, medborgarskap och deltagardemokrati : en studie av medborgarutskotten i Helsingborg”. PhD. Diss. Lund: Sociologiska institutionenGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tahvilzadeh, Nazem. 2015. “Understanding Participatory Governance Arrangements in Urban Politics: Idealist and Cynical Perspectives on the Politics of Citizen Dialogues in Göteborg, Sweden.” Urban Research & Practice 8 (2): 238–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2010. Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. Vol. 11. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaara, Eero, Janne Tienari, and Juha Laurila. 2006. “Pulp and Paper Fiction: On the Discursive Legitimation of Global Industrial Restructuring.” Organization Studies 27 (6): 789–813. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaara, Eero. 2014. “Struggles over Legitimacy in the Eurozone Crisis: Discursive Legitimation Strategies and their Ideological Underpinnings.” Discourse & Society 25 (4): 500–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Discourse as the Recontextualization of Social Practice: A Guide.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 137–153. Los Angeles (CA): SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiberg, Sofia. 2018. ”Lyssnandets praktik: Medborgardialog, icke-vetande och förskjutningar”. PhD diss. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael, Meyer. 2016. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles (CA): SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kleemann, Janina, Berenike Struve & Marcin Spyra
2023. Conflicts in urban peripheries in Europe. Land Use Policy 133 ► pp. 106849 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue