Cover not available
Article published In:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 136–171

Deontic power and institutional contexts

The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate

| University of Central Lancashire
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.
Keywords: argumentative pattern, argument scheme, decision-making, deliberation, deontic powers, fracking, institutional context, institutional design, risks and impacts, shale gas
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Institutional design as a source of deontic reasons
  • 3.Deliberation and decision-making: Analytical framework and methodology
  • 4.Argument schemes in the fracking debate
  • 5.Rights, obligations and prohibitions as reasons in the fracking debate
  • 6.Public health: Material or non-material consideration?
  • 7.Deontic reasons as premises in decision-making
  • 8.Non-deontic power: Government and corporate power
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
References

References

Anthony, Lawrence
2014 AntConc (Version 3.4.3w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Bradshaw, Michael, and Catherine Waite
2017 “Learning from Lancashire: Exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England”. Global Environmental Change 471: 28–36, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrington, Damian
2015 “George Osborne urges ministers to fast-track fracking measures in leaked letter”. The Guardian 26 January 2015 At: [URL]
Cotton, Matthew
2017 “Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning”. Local Environment 22 (2): 198–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drill Or Drop
n.d.). Website of independent journalism on fracking, onshore oil and gas and the reactions to it. At [URL]
Van Eemeren, Frans H.
2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics”. Argumentation 301: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren, 157–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen
2010 “ In Varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type”. Controversia 7(1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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”. In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough
2012 Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2013 “Argument, deliberation, dialectic and the nature of the political: A CDA perspective”. Political Studies Review 11 (3): 336–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela
2015 “A dialectical profile for the evaluation of practical arguments”. In B. 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: [URL]
2016 “Evaluating policy as practical argument: the public debate over the first UK Austerity Budget”. Critical Discourse Studies 13(1): 57–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a “Deliberative discourse”. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by John Richardson, and John Flowerdew, 242–256. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018b “Conductive argumentation in the UK fracking debate”. In Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Vol. II1, ed. by Steve Oswald, and Didier Maillat, 297–310. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
forthcoming. “Is there such a thing as a conductive argument?” In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Francis, Nelson and Henry Kucera
1964 The Brown Corpus, available from [URL]
Hayhurst, Ruth
2018 “Cuadrilla seeks to extend protest injunction at Lancashire fracking site – and applies for fracking consent”. Available from [URL] (last accessed 22 May 2018).
Lancashire County Council
2018 The Constitution, available on LCC website at [URL]
Lewiński, Marcin
2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues”. Discourse and Communication 10(6): 553–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKay, Wendy
2016 “Costs Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government”. At [URL]
Miller, David
1994 Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
2006 Out of Error. Further Essays on Critical Rationalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2013 Deduktivistische Entscheidungsfindung. In Kritischer Rationalismus heute. Zur Aktuaklität de Philosophie Karl Poppers, ed. by R. Neck, and H. Stelzer, 45–78. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. German translation of “Deductivist Decision Making” (unpublished MS).Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl
2002 Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
2005 “What is an institution?”. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Science 261: 11–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Fairclough, Isabela
2020. Is “Conductive Argument” a Single Argument?. In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild [Argumentation Library, 35], ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Fairclough, Isabela
2022. The UK Government’s “Balancing Act” in the Pandemic: Rational Decision-Making from an Argumentative Perspective. In The Pandemic of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 43], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Fairclough, Isabela & Irina Diana Mădroane
2020. An Argumentative Approach to “Framing”. Framing, Deliberation and Action in an Environmental Conflict. Co-herencia 17:32 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Goodwin, Jean
2019. Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Musi, Elena & Mark Aakhus
2019. Framing fracking. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2023. 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.