1887
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is a deliberative process that has been used in the United States to involve panels of citizens in producing balanced and easily understandable accounts of proposed ballot measures and their potential effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the CIR process is shaped by evaluative framing in which the rational component cannot be clearly separated from the emotive base of assigning responsibility. We analyze the argumentative dynamic of advocates’ presentations during the 2010 CIR on Measure 73 and discuss emotional claims as products of narrative structures that define problem situations. We explore how the distinction between manipulative and valid emotional claims within the context of public deliberation can be made with the help of three categories of analysis: Themes, Ideals, and Scenarios.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.14013.luk
2019-05-27
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gastil, John, and Knobloch, Katherine
    2010Official 2010 CIR Evaluation Report Given to Oregon Legislature on December 16, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gastil, John, Robert Richards, and Katherine Knobloch
    2014 “Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections.” International Journal of Communication8: 62–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Griffiths, Paul
    1990 “Modularity, and the Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotion.” Biology and Philosophy5: 175–196. 10.1007/BF00127486
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127486 [Google Scholar]
  5. Jost, John, and David Amodio
    2012 “Political Ideology as Motivated Social Cognition: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence.” Motivation and Emotion36(1):55–64. 10.1007/s11031‑011‑9260‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of. Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Knobloch, Katherine, John Gastil, and Tyrone Reitman
    2015 “Connecting Micro-Deliberation to Electoral Decision Making: Institutionalizing the Oregon CIR.” Deliberation: Values, Processes, Institutionsed. byAnna Przybylska. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Knobloch, Katherine, John Gastil, Robert Richards, and Tracy Feller
    2013Official 2012 CIR Evaluation Report for the Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2010The Discursive Construction of European Identities. A Multi-Level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lakoff, George
    2004Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lazarus, Richard
    1991Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mameli, Matteo
    2004 “The Role of Emotions in Ecological and Practical Rationality.” Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality, ed. byDylan Evans and Pierre Cruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528975.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528975.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mannheim, Karl
    1949Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Marcus, George
    2002The Sentimental Citizen. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. McShea, Robert, and Daniel McShea
    1999 “Biology and Value Theory.” Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, ed. byJane Maienschein and Michael Ruse, 307–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609077.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609077.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Milgram, Elijah
    2005Ethics Done Right: Practical Reasoning as a Foundation for Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610615
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610615 [Google Scholar]
  18. Modell, Arnold
    2003Imagination and the Meaningful Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3666.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3666.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Musolff, Andreas
    2004Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016Political Metaphor Analysis. Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Reisigl, Martin
    2014 “Argumentation Analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach. A Methodological Framework.” Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 67–96. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse of Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Richards, Robert
    2012 “Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review 2010 Measure.” Participedia (https://participedia.net/en/cases/oregon-citizens-initiative-review-2010-measure-73)
    [Google Scholar]
  24. von Scheve, Christian
    2013Emotion and Social Structures. The Affective Foundations of Social Order. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 “A Social Relational Account of Affect.” European Journal of Social Theory21(1):39–59. 10.1177/1368431017690007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431017690007 [Google Scholar]
  26. de Sousa, Ronald
    2008 “Against Emotional Modularity.” The Modularity of Emotions, ed. byChristine Tappolet and Luc Faucher, 29–50. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Spezio, Michael, and Ralph Adolphs
    2007 “Emotional Processing and Political Judgment: Toward Integrating Political Psychology and Decision Neuroscience.” The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, ed. byGeorge E. Marcus Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Spottswood, Mark
    2014 “Emotional Fact-Finding.” Kansas Law Review63: 41–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sripada, Chandra, and Stephen Stitch
    2004 “Evolution, Culture and the Irrationality of the Emotions.” Emotion, Evolution and Rationality, ed. byDylan Evans and Pierre Cruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528975.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528975.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Tenenbaum, Sergio
    2003 “Accidie, Evaluation, and Motivation.” Weakness of Will and Practical Irrationality, ed. bySarah Strout and Christine Tappolet, 147–171. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0199257361.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0199257361.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  31. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed.New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Dijk, Teun
    2014Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  33. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2010Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.14013.luk
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