1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
2022-03-08
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2013 “Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2(1): 101–126. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak [Google Scholar]
  2. Amossy, Ruth
    2009 “Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-discursive Approach to Arguments.” Informal Logic29(3): 252–267. 10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i3.2843 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2021L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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.” Participations1: 36–66. 10.3917/parti.001.0036
    https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0036 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berger, Mathieu
    2014 “La participation sans le discours.” Espaces Temps.net, Travaux. www.espacestemps.net/articles/la-participation-sans-le-discours/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blatrix, Cécile
    2002 “Devoir débattre. Les effets de l’institutionalisation de la participation sur les formes de l’action collective.” Politix15(57): 79–102. 10.3406/polix.2002.1208
    https://doi.org/10.3406/polix.2002.1208 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blondiaux, Loïc , and Yves Sintomer
    2002 “L’impératif participatif.” Politix15(57): 17–35. 10.3406/polix.2002.1205
    https://doi.org/10.3406/polix.2002.1205 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 politique50(4–5): 779–809. 10.3406/rfsp.2000.395508
    https://doi.org/10.3406/rfsp.2000.395508 [Google Scholar]
  9. Casillo, Ilaria
    2018 “La procedura di dibattito pubblico francese: una pratica ventennale di democrazia partecipativa sulle grandi opere.” InIl dibattito pubblico per infrastrutture utili, snelle e condivise Manuale di applicazione della nuova legge, ed. byFondazione ItaliaDecide, 13–24. Catanzaro: Rubettino Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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 politici3: 635–656.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Castells, Manuel
    (1973) Luttes urbaines et pouvoirs politiques. Paris: Maspero.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dewey, John
    2010Le Public et ses problèmes (Trans.). Paris: Gallimard. (Original work published in 1927).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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).” InDiscours d’experts et d’expertise, ed. by Isabelle Léglise , and Nathalie Garric , 179–213. Berne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Doury, Marianne , and Christian Plantin
    2015 “Une approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation.” Argumentation et Analyse du Discours15. https://aad.revues.org/2006. 10.4000/aad.2006
    https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.2006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Doury, Marianne , Matthieu Quet , and Assimakis Tseronis
    2015 “Le façonnage de la critique par les dispositifs. Le cas du débat sur les nanotechnologies.” Semen39: 39–58. 10.4000/semen.10472
    https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.10472 [Google Scholar]
  16. Floridia, Antonio
    2012La democrazia deliberative: teorie, processi, sistemi. Roma: Carocci Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gourgues, Guillaume , Sandrine Rui , and Sezin Topçu
    (eds.) 2013Participations2. (“Critique de la participation et gouvernementalité.”)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1998Raison et légitimité (Trans). Paris: Payot. (Original work published in 1973).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirschman, Albert
    1970Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackson, Sally
    1998 “Disputation by design.” Argumentation12: 183–198. 10.1023/A:1007743830491
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007743830491 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacquin, Jérôme
    2014Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck. 10.3917/dbu.jacqu.2014.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.jacqu.2014.01 [Google Scholar]
  22. Joss, Simon , and John Durant
    1995 “Introduction.” InPublic participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe, ed. by Simon Joss , and John Durant , 9–13. Londres: Science Museum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    2017Les débats de l’entre-deux-tours des élections présidentielles françaises. Constantes et évolutions d’un genre. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2019Le débat Le Pen/Macron du 3 mai 2017: un débat “disruptif ?”Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewiński, Marcin , and Dima Mohammed
    (eds) 2013Journal of Argumentation in Context2(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Manin, Bernard
    1995Principes du gouvernement representative. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mondada, Lorenza
    2013 “Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates.” Journal of Pragmatics46: 39–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Plantin, Christian
    2010 “Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives.” Verbum32(1): 31–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosanvallon, Pierre
    2006La contre-démocratie, La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rowe, Gene , and Lynn J. Frewer
    2000 “Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, Technology and Human Values25: 3–29. 10.1177/016224390002500101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2005 “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, Technology, and Human Values30: 251–290. 10.1177/0162243904271724
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spieker, Arne , and Marko Bachl
    2013 “Sonderfall statt prototype: eine prozedurale und empirische. Analyse der sclichtung zu Stuttgart 21.” InThe governance of large-scale project. Linking citizens and the State, ed. by Andrea Römmele , and Henrik Schober , 244–269. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 10.5771/9783845243566‑244
    https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845243566-244 [Google Scholar]
  33. Weger, Harry Jr , and Mark Aakhus
    2003 “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences For Public Deliberation At Distance.” Argumentation and Advocacy40:23–38. 10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
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