Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues
This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that
links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political,
environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand,
topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a
spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed
a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in
the national energy production.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The extended polylogue of the expansion
- 3.The results of public opinion polls and audience demand
- 4.The topics of discourse and topical potential
- 5.The presentational devices of an extended controversy
- 6.Fully-fledged argumentative strategy
- 7.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Availability of data
-
References
References (57)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 2009. “Transparency
work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society.” Proceedings of the
16th NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta UT, 1–12.
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński. 2017. “Advancing
polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking
controversy.” Argumentation 31 (1): 179–207. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek, and Punit Dadlani. 2016. “Argumentation
in large, complex practices.” OSSA Conference
Archive. 541. [URL]
Arlt, Dorothee, and Jens Wolling. 2015. “Fukushima
effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power.” Public
Understanding of
Science 25 (7): 1–16. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. “Public
opinion does not exist.” Trans. Axtmann, M. C. In Capitalism,
imperialism. Vol. 1 of Communication and class struggle, ed. by Armand Mattleart, and Seth Siegelaub, 124–30. New York: International General.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crosswhite, James. 1996. The
rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culler, Connie. 2015. Good
Works: The Topoi of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Travel and Tourism
Industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved
from University of Central Florida, STARS, [URL]
Demeter, Márton. 2018. “Propaganda
against the West in the Heart of Europe. A masked official state campaign in Hungary”. Central
European Journal of
Communication 11 (21): 177–97. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Egres, Dorottya. 2020. “Virtuális vitatér – A Paks 2 polilógus hyperlink hálózatának elemzése” [Virtual venues for argumentation – Analysis of the hyperlink network of the Paks 2
polylogue]. Információs
Társadalom 20 (1): 50–71. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Egres, Dorottya, and Petschner Anna. 2020. “The
Paks Pact: Topoi in Hungarian Nuclear Energy
Discourse.” In Controversies and Interdisciplinarity. Beyond
disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model. ed. by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna, and Giovanni Scarafile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Einsiedel, Edna F. 2008. “Public participation and
dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and
technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–84. London and New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellwanger, Adam. 2017. “Reinventing
doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.” Argumentation and
Advocacy 53 (3): 181–98. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eriksson, Anders. 2012. “Argumentative
Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation”. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (Eds.), Topical
Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. “Media
discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.” American Journal of
Sociology 95 (1): 1–37. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guardian. 2018. Russia poses greater
threat than Isis, new British army chief
warns. November 24. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
International Energy Agency. 2017. Energy
Policies of IEA Countries: Hungary 2017 Review. IEA Publications. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
Kim, Jiyoun, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Michael Xenos. 2016. ““Shared”
information in the age of Big Data: Exploring sentiment expression related to nuclear energy on
Twitter.” Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 93 (2): 430–45. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kristiansen, Silije. 2017. “Characteristics
of the mass media’s coverage of nuclear energy and its risk: A literature review.” Sociology
Compass 11 (7): 1–10. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leff, Michael. 2006. “Up
from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won”. Rhetoric Society
Quarterly 36 (2): 203–11. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levasseur, David G. 2005. “The role of public opinion in
policy argument: An examination of public opinion rhetoric in the federal budget
process.” Argumentation and
Advocacy 41 (3): 152–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010. “Collective
argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and
Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, Marcin. 2016. “Shale
gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse &
Communication 10 (6): 553–75. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative
polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological
inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–85. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, Marcin, and J. Anthony Blair. 2011. Monologue,
dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? OSSA Conference
Archive. 521. [URL]
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed. 2015. “Tweeting
the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital
media.” In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA
Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Catherine Helen Palczewski, 291–7. London and New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mohammed, Dima. 2018. “Standing
standpoints and argumentative associates. What is at stake in a public political
argument?” Argumentation 33 (3): 307–22. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus. 2018. “Discovering
argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument
mining.” Argumentation 32 (3): 397–430. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noella-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1974. “The
Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion.” Journal of
Communication 24 (2): 43–51. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Novikau, Aliaksandr. 2017. “Nuclear
power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets.” Public Understanding
of
Science 26 (3): 1–14. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati. 2016. “Multiple
audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical
situations.” Argumentation 30 (4): 467–99. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The
Filter Bubble. How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780143121237.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La
nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de
l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pidgeon, Nick, and Christina C. Demski. 2012. “From
nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes.” Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists 68 (4): 41–51. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prati, Gabriele, and Bruna Zani. 2012. “The
effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental
beliefs, and values.” Environment and
Behavior 45 (6): 782–98. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rubinelli, Sara. 2009. Ars
Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simonovits, Bori. 2020. “The
Public Perception of the Migration Crisis from the Hungarian Point of View. Evidence from the
Field.” In Geographies of Asylum in Europe and the Role of European
Localities, ed. by Brigit Glorus and Jeroen Doomernik. Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sarlós, Gábor. 2014. Risk
and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary. Ph.D
Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sarlós, Gábor. 2015a. “A közvéleménykutatások szerepe a magyarországi atomenergia diskurzus
alakításában [The role of opinion polls in shaping the nuclear discourse in
Hungary].” Új jel-kép: kommunikáció, közvélemény,
média 4 (1): 20–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sarlós, Gábor. 2015b. “Miért áll a konfliktusok középpontjában az atomenergia? [Why
is nuclear energy at the center of
conflicts?].” Presentation, Budapest, March 2015.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sarlós, Gábor. 2015c. “Kockázatok és előnyök megjelenése az atomenergia magyarországi kommunikációs
narratíváiban [Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives
of Nuclear Energy in Hungary].” Ph.D Dissertation
summary. Eötvös Loránd University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Than, Krisztina. 2015. Special
Report: Inside Hungary’s $10.8 billion nuclear deal with
Russia. Reuters, March 30, World
News. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
Thogmorton, James A. 1993. “Planning as a rhetorical
activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in
Chicago.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 59 (3): 334–46. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tindale, Cristopher W. 2006. “Constrained maneuvering:
Rhetoric as a rational
enterprise.” Argumentation 20 (4): 447–66. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tindale, Cristopher W. 2007. “Revisiting Aristotle’s
Topoi”. OSSA Conference Archive 141. Available
at: [URL]
Tindale, Cristopher W. 2015. The philosophy of argument and audience
reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turcanu, Catrinel, Tanja Perko, and Erik Laes. 2014. “Public
participation processes related to nuclear research installations: What are the driving factors behind participation
intention?” Public Understanding of
Science 23 (3): 331–47. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, Frans. H. 2018. Argumentation theory: A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woo, Jongroul, HyungBin Moon, Jongsu Lee, and Jinyong Jang. 2017. “Public
attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea.” Energy &
Environment 28 (4): 1–19. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ylönen, Marja, Tapio Litmanen, Matti Kojo, and Pirita Lindell. 2015. “The
(de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima.” Public
Understanding of
Science 26 (3): 260–74. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Egres, Dorottya & Gábor Sarlós
2024.
Nuclear perceptions from radioactive blue to sustainable green: The EU taxonomy as reflection of a divided public.
Journal of Public Affairs 24:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.