Balancing the ideals of public participation
Discursive legitimation strategies of a disputed practice
Maria Sjögren | University of Gothenburg
Local authorities in western societies increasingly initiate public participation processes despite criticism of these methods. To understand this development calls for in-depth studies of how the goals and values of public participation are articulated in practice. This paper analyzes the discursive legitimation strategies deployed by civil servants in twelve planning meetings for a participatory process aimed at mitigating violence in a Swedish suburb. The study draws on previous research on discursive legitimation, and presents the context-specific strategies of authorization, de-legitimation, cosmology and addressing of values. The analysis highlights that a core discursive tension in this practice arises from its need to seek mandate in the municipal structure, while the value discourses used to legitimize public participation build on a break from traditional bureaucracy. The study contributes to the broader literature on discursive legitimation in contemporary political contexts, with detailed empirical accounts of how a disputed practice is legitimized in interaction.
Keywords: public participation, citizen participation, critical discourse studies, legitimation, social practice, local governance, planning meetings
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Participation as a disputed practice
- 2.Discourse and legitimation
- 2.1Analytical framework
- 2.2Previous research on discursive legitimation
- 3.Material and method
- 3.1The case study
- 3.2Data
- 3.3Method
- 4.Results
- 4.1Authorization
- 4.2De-legitimation (distancing to previous processes)
- 4.3Cosmology
- 4.4Addressing of values
- 5.Summary and discussion
- 5.1Balancing participatory ideals at the local level
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 13 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19098.sjo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19098.sjo
References
Aggerholm, Helle Kryger, and Birte Asmuß
Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg
Amnå, Erik
Anderson, Rob, Leslie A. Baxter, and Kenneth N. Cissna
Angouri, Jo, and Ruth Wodak
Barbalet, Jack M.
Baumeler, Carmen
Berger, Peter L., Thomas Luckmann, Thomas
Black, Laura W.
Bornemark, Jonna
Breit, Eric
Bruning, Stephen D., Melissa Dials, and Amanda Shirka
Bächtiger, André, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren
Carpentier, Nico
Codó, Eva
Cornwall, Andrea
Dybel, Pawel
2015 “Rational Dialogue or Emotional Agon? Habermas’s Concept of the Public Sphere and Mouffe’s Project of Radical Democracy.” In Democracy in Dialogue, Dialogue in Democracy: The Politics of Dialogue in Theory and Practice, ed. by Katarzyna Jezierska and Leszek Koczanowicz, 95–112, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Erkama, Niina, and Eero Vaara
Farkas, Kerrie R. H.
Fonseca, Pedro, and Maria João Ferreira
Fung, Archon
Goodin, Robert E., and John S. Dryzek
Hellquist, Alexander, and Martin Westin
Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury
Karlsson, Tom
Karppinen, Kari, Hallvard Moe, and Jakob Svensson
Kranert, Michael
Krzyżanowski, Michał
Michels, Ank, and Laurens De Graaf
Mirhosseini, Seyyed-Abdolhamid
Moisander, Johanna K., Heidi Hirsto, and Kathryn M. Fahy
Rojo, Luisa Martin, and Teun A. Van Dijk
Sarangi, Srikant, and Stefan Slembrouck
SOU 2000:1
Suddaby, Roy, and Royston Greenwood
Svensson, Jakob
Tahvilzadeh, Nazem
Tracy, Karen
Vaara, Eero, Janne Tienari, and Juha Laurila
Vaara, Eero
Van Leeuwen, Theo
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak
Wiberg, Sofia