Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation in European Politics
Edited by Corina Andone and Bart Garssen
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1] 2022
► pp. 133–155

Prescribed argumentation, actual argumentation, reported argumentation

The management of argumentation in a public debate in France

| NCPD, Université Gustave Eiffel
| Université de Paris
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.
Keywords: participatory process, argumentation design, public debate, ordinary political discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The French experience of public debates and prescribed argumentation
    • 2.1The NCPD: An institution with three missions
    • 2.2Prescribed argumentation
    • 2.3The debate on the gold mine in Guiana: David against Goliath?
    • 2.4The data
  • 3.Actual argumentation: Integration of the prescribed argumentation in the speech event
  • 4.Actual argumentation: Principles put to the test
    • 4.1Principle of equivalence
    • 4.2Principle of transparency
    • 4.3Inclusion principle
  • 5.Discussion. Hesitation between two models: Participation / communication
  • 6.Reported argumentation
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21021.dou
References (33)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 2013. “Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amossy, Ruth. 2009. “Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-discursive Approach to Arguments.” Informal Logic 29(3): 252–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
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.” Participations 11: 36–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Mathieu. 2014. “La participation sans le discours.” Espaces Temps.net, Travaux. [URL]
Blatrix, Cécile. 2002. “Devoir débattre. Les effets de l’institutionalisation de la participation sur les formes de l’action collective.” Politix 15(57): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blondiaux, Loïc, and Yves Sintomer. 2002. “L’impératif participatif.” Politix 15(57): 17–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 politique 50(4–5): 779–809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casillo, Ilaria. 2018. “La procedura di dibattito pubblico francese: una pratica ventennale di democrazia partecipativa sulle grandi opere.” In Il dibattito pubblico per infrastrutture utili, snelle e condivise Manuale di applicazione della nuova legge, ed. by Fondazione ItaliaDecide, 13–24. Catanzaro: Rubettino Editore.Google Scholar
. 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 politici 31: 635–656.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. (1973). Luttes urbaines et pouvoirs politiques. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 2010. Le Public et ses problèmes (Trans.). Paris: Gallimard. (Original work published in 1927).Google Scholar
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).” In Discours d’experts et d’expertise, ed. by Isabelle Léglise, and Nathalie Garric, 179–213. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Doury, Marianne, and Christian Plantin. 2015. “Une approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation.” Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 151. [URL]. DOI logo
Doury, Marianne, Matthieu Quet, and Assimakis Tseronis. 2015. “Le façonnage de la critique par les dispositifs. Le cas du débat sur les nanotechnologies.” Semen 391: 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floridia, Antonio. 2012. La democrazia deliberative: teorie, processi, sistemi. Roma: Carocci Editore.Google Scholar
Gourgues, Guillaume, Sandrine Rui, and Sezin Topçu (eds.). 2013. Participations 21. (“Critique de la participation et gouvernementalité.”)Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Raison et légitimité (Trans). Paris: Payot. (Original work published in 1973).Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1998. “Disputation by design.” Argumentation 121: 183–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2014. Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joss, Simon, and John Durant. 1995. “Introduction.” In Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe, ed. by Simon Joss, and John Durant, 9–13. Londres: Science Museum.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2017. Les débats de l’entre-deux-tours des élections présidentielles françaises. Constantes et évolutions d’un genre. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
. 2019. Le débat Le Pen/Macron du 3 mai 2017: un débat “disruptif ?” Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed (eds). 2013. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1).Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1995. Principes du gouvernement representative. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 461: 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 2010. “Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives.” Verbum 32(1): 31–51.Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2006. La contre-démocratie, La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2000. “Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, Technology and Human Values 251: 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 301: 251–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spieker, Arne, and Marko Bachl. 2013. “Sonderfall statt prototype: eine prozedurale und empirische. Analyse der sclichtung zu Stuttgart 21.” In The governance of large-scale project. Linking citizens and the State, ed. by Andrea Römmele, and Henrik Schober, 244–269. Baden-Baden: Nomos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Advocacy 401:23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar