1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article I study the constraints and opportunities available to decision-makers in an institutional context (a county council), by analyzing the deliberative process that led to the rejection of an application for exploratory fracking. Drawing on a corpus of 130,000 words, I intend to develop the theorization of argumentation in institutional contexts initiated in pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010) by drawing on philosopher John Searle’s (2010) concept of “deontic power”. Illustrating both the restrictive and enabling force of the institutional context, my analysis shows that, while decisions which are in keeping with institutional rules are legitimate in the sense of being legal, the reasonableness of the institutional context itself cannot be taken for granted. With various institutional rules in place seeming to obstruct rather than facilitate a rational decision outcome, and a local decision, democratically arrived at, subsequently legally overturned by central government, it can be argued that bias against local democracy was in this case built into (legal) institutional design.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
2019-02-14
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, Lawrence
    2014AntConc (Version 3.4.3w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available fromwww.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bradshaw, Michael, and Catherine Waite
    2017 “Learning from Lancashire: Exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England”. Global Environmental Change47: 28–36, doi:  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carrington, Damian
    2015 “George Osborne urges ministers to fast-track fracking measures in leaked letter”. The Guardian, 26January 2015 At: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/george-osborne-ministers-fast-track-fracking
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cotton, Matthew
    2017 “Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning”. Local Environment22 (2): 198–202. doi:  10.1080/13549839.2016.1186613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1186613 [Google Scholar]
  5. Drill Or Drop
    Drill Or Drop (n.d.). Website of independent journalism on fracking, onshore oil and gas and the reactions to it. Athttps://drillordrop.com
  6. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016 “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics”. Argumentation30: 1–23. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2017a The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. InPrototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Ed. byFrans H. Van Eemeren, 157–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.10van [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen
    2010 “In Varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type”. Controversia7(1): 19–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Bart Garssen
    2012 “Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament”. InExploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. byFrans H. Van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.4.03van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.4.03van [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 “Argument, deliberation, dialectic and the nature of the political: A CDA perspective”. Political Studies Review11 (3): 336–344. 10.1111/1478‑9302.12025
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12025 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairclough, Isabela
    2015 “A dialectical profile for the evaluation of practical arguments”. InB. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Rozenberg Quarterly. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat. Available from: rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-a-dialectical-profile-for-the-evaluation-of-practical-arguments/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2016 “Evaluating policy as practical argument: the public debate over the first UK Austerity Budget”. Critical Discourse Studies13(1): 57–77. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2015.1074595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1074595 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018a “Deliberative discourse”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byJohn Richardson, and John Flowerdew, 242–256. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018b “Conductive argumentation in the UK fracking debate”. InArgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Vol.II, ed. bySteve Oswald, and Didier Maillat, 297–310. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. . forthcoming. “Is there such a thing as a conductive argument?” InProceedings of the 9th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Francis, Nelson and Henry Kucera
    1964 The Brown Corpus, available fromhttps://archive.org/details/BrownCorpus
  21. Hayhurst, Ruth
    2018 “Cuadrilla seeks to extend protest injunction at Lancashire fracking site – and applies for fracking consent”. Available fromhttps://drillordrop.com/2018/05/21/cuadrilla-seeks-to-extend-protest-injunction-at-lancashire-fracking-site/ (last accessed22 May 2018).
  22. Lancashire County Council
    Lancashire County Council 2018The Constitution, available on LCC website atcouncil.lancashire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=914&MId=2916&Ver=4&info=1&bcr=1
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewiński, Marcin
    2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues”. Discourse and Communication10(6): 553–575. 10.1177/1750481316674773
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674773 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed
    2019 “The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.65–90. 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  25. McKay, Wendy
    2016 “Costs Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government”. Athttps://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate
  26. Miller, David
    1994Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago: Open Court.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2006Out of Error. Further Essays on Critical Rationalism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 Deduktivistische Entscheidungsfindung. InKritischer Rationalismus heute. Zur Aktuaklität de Philosophie Karl Poppers, ed. byR. Neck, and H. Stelzer, 45–78. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. German translation of “Deductivist Decision Making” (unpublished MS).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Musi, Elena and Mark Aakhus
    2019 “Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.112–135. 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus [Google Scholar]
  30. Popper, Karl
    2002Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rodrigues, S., Marcin Lewiński, and Mehmet Ali Uzelgun
    2019 “Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.12–39. 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
  32. Searle, John R.
    2005 “What is an institution?”. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1): 1–22. 10.1017/S1744137405000020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000020 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Whitton, John, Kathryn Brasier, Ioan Charnley-Parry, and Matthew Cotton
    2017 “Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice”. Energy Research and Social Science26: 11–22. doi:  10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.015 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error