The need for expert knowledge in public deliberation
The case of environmental debates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v15i59.175Keywords:
deliberation, political practice, debate, genresAbstract
In this article, parliamentary debates in the Swedish Riksdag during the 90:s and 00:s are analyzed, mainly with
regard to how the participants deal with different debate topics. The analysis is based on a set of assumptions about the conditions
defining the modern public sphere. With the help of theories of political deliberation, generic traits and shifts in the
discussion are focused. The aim is to find out how deliberation is affected by the participants’ level of knowledge of the matters
at hand and the possible needs for expert contributions. The role of expert knowledge for political deliberation and decision
is related to strategic rhetorical choices in an analysis of the conflict between well-grounded decisions and political prestige.
References
Aristoteles, K. & Alexander, G., On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse: Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.
Ceccarelli, L. M. ”” Let Us (Not) Theorize the Spaces of Contention”.” Argumentation and advocacy: the journal of the American Forensic Association 42 (2005): 30-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821637
Chambers, Simone, ”Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory 3 (2009): 323–350. Svensk översättning: ”Retoriken och offentligheten. Har den deliberativa demokratin övergett massdemokratin?”, Rhetorica Scandinavica 59 (2011), s 16-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709332336
Chaput, M. & Campos, M. N. ”A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Political Argumentation.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Sicsat 2007, edited by J Frans H. van Eemeren, Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, Bart Garssen Amsterdam: International Center for the Study of Argumentation, 2007.
Condit, C. M. ”The Functions of Epideictic: The Boston Massacre Orations as Exemplar.” Communication Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1985): 284-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369608
Dahlgren, P. ”The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation.” Political Communication 22, no. 2 (2005): 147-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Dryzek, J. S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations: Oxford University Press, USA, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.001.0001
Habermas, Jürgen, Borgerlig offentlighet. Kategorien ”privat” och ”offentlig” i det moderna samhället. Lund: Arkiv Förlag. 1962/1984.
Hellspong, L. ”Den demokratiska dialogen. Om förhållandet mellan talarkonst och folkstyre i ljuset av några retoriska begrepp.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 12 (1999), s18–42.
Hellspong, L. ”Offentligheten som retorisk arena.” Folkmålsstudier 48 (2010).
Jørgensen, Charlotte, Kock, Christian & Rørbech, Lone. Retorik der flytter stemmer. Hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat. Ödåkra: Retorikforlaget, 2011 [1994]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52610/QCUS5502
Kjeldsen, J. E. ”Retoriske omstændigheder: Retorikken i en fragmenteret, foranderlig og kompleks verden.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 48 (2009): 42-63.
Landqvist, M. ”Förhandlares Kommunikativa Kompetens.” Örebro universitet, Humanistiska instituitonen, 2006.
Lyne, J. ”Science Controversy, Common Sense, and the Third Culture.” Argumentation and advocacy: the journal of the American Forensic Association 42 (2005): 38-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821639
Miller, C. R. ”Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly journal of speech 70, no. 2 (1984): 151-67. Norsk översättning: ”Genre som sosial handling”Rhetorica Scandinavica 18 (2001): 17-35 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686
Miller, C. R. ”The Presumptions of Expertise: The Role of Ethos in Risk Analysis.” Configurations 11, no. 2 (2004): 163-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2004.0022
Miller, C. R. ”Risk, Controversy, and Rhetoric: Response to Goodnight.” Argumentation and advocacy: the journal of the American Forensic Association 42 (2005): 34-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821638
Mral, B. ”“Gerade wir Deutschen wissen, was Solidarität vermag”, Tsunamikrisen som epideiktisk situation.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 46 (2008): 36-55.
Nygård, M. & Pajaaste, K. ”Retorik som det möjligas konst.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 19 (2001): 21–37.
Reboul, A, och J. Moeschler, ”Pragmatique du discours: Dix ans après.” Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Philologia, no. 4 (2009): 5-33.
Räihä, Helge, Lärares Dilemman. Örebro universitet, humanistiska institutionen, 2008.
Sigrell, Anders, Att övertyga mellan raderna. En retorisk studie om underförståddheter i modern politisk argumentation. Åstorp, Retorikförlaget, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52610/XUUY4379
Van Leeuwen, Theo, ”Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1, no. 1 (2007): 91–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Rhetorica Scandinavica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
