Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Frank Fischer is Professor of Politics and Global Affairs at Rutgers University. He also teaches at the university's E. J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and is a Senior Faculty Fellow at the University of Kassel in Germany. His books include Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry and The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (coedited with John Forester), which is also published by Duke University Press.

Herbert Gottweis is Professor of Political Science at the University of Vienna and Visiting Professor at the United Nations University in Tokyo and in the Sociology Department at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. Among his books is Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

The Argumentative Turn Revisited

DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Contents

INTRODUCTION: The Argumentative Turn Revisited Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis........................................................................................11. Fostering Deliberation in the Forum and Beyond John S. Dryzek and Carolyn M. Hendriks.................................................................................312. Performing Place Governance Collaboratively: Planning as a Communicative Process Patsy Healey.........................................................................583. Discursive Institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics, and Philosophical Underpinnings Vivien A. Schmidt.......................................................................854. From Policy Frames to Discursive Politics: Feminist Approaches to Development Policy and Planning in an Era of Globalization Mary Hawkesworth.........................1145. The Internet as a Space for Policy Deliberation Stephen Coleman.......................................................................................................1496. Multimedia and Urban Narratives in the Planning Process: Film as Policy Inquiry and Dialogue Catalyst Leonie Sandercock and Giovanni Attili...........................1807. Political Rhetoric and Stem Cell Policy in the United States: Embodiments, Scenographies, and Emotions Herbert Gottweis...............................................2118. The Deep Semiotic Structure of Deservingness: Discourse and Identity in Welfare Policy Sanford F. Schram..............................................................2369. The Argumentative Turn toward Deliberative Democracy: Habermas's Contribution and the Foucauldian Critique Hubertus Buchstein and Dirk Jörke.....................27110. Poststructuralist Policy Analysis: Discourse, Hegemony, and Critical Explanation David Howarth and Steven Griggs.....................................................30511. Transformative Learning in Planning and Policy Deliberation: Probing Social Meaning and Tacit Assumptions Frank Fischer and Alan Mandell.............................343CONTRIBUTORS..............................................................................................................................................................371INDEX.....................................................................................................................................................................375

Chapter One

Fostering Deliberation in the Forum and Beyond

The argumentative turn led to appreciation of the variety of forms of communication that could play their parts in public policy processes—and thus also in public policy analysis. These forms include not just argument narrowly conceived, but also rhetoric, testimony, and the telling of stories, narratives, performances, humor, and ceremonial speech. We take it as given that policy analysis now needs to pay strong attention to these communicative forms and the frames or discourses in which they are embedded, and focus here upon the settings in which such communications can occur. These settings range from legislatures to administrative agencies to courts to public hearings to the broader public sphere and also include, crucially, the systems that join all these particular sites. The setting has major consequences for the kinds of communications that can be made and heard. So, for example, courts typically impose fairly strict rules upon who can speak, when, and in what terms; and judges stand ready to rule particular communications out of order.

Sometimes settings are designed to facilitate particular sorts of communications. So, for example, parliaments in Westminster-style political systems are designed to promote adversarial debate. The very design of the chamber distinguishes between government and opposition, with each side facing the other. And all the rules and informal practices are designed to facilitate questioning, challenge, the scoring of points, and the competition of proposals, but not mutual understanding, creativity in the crafting of proposals, or conflict resolution that would be in the interests of all sides.

In recent years, the argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning has converged with the political theory of deliberative democracy and with a movement to institutionalize deliberative forums in political processes. The forums in question include stakeholder dialogues, alternative dispute resolution exercises, collaborative mechanisms, and various designs that rely on lay citizens, such as consensus conferences, citizens' juries, planning cells, citizens' assemblies, and deliberative polls. Most of these developed originally without much input from the theory of deliberative democracy (except for deliberative polls), but theorists are now very interested in these forums for their potential embodiment of deliberative ideals (Smith and Wales 2002; Warren and Pearse 2008). Public policy scholars for their part have recognized affinities between their own work and that of deliberative theorists and are interested in the institutional implications of particular sorts of communication. So, for example, Hajer and Wagenaar (2003) speak of "deliberative policy analysis" that proves especially appropriate for contemporary networked forms of governance that downplay the role of sovereign authority in policy making. These sorts of convergent developments lead to questions about what sorts of communications count as deliberative, how existing practices and institutions might be evaluated in these terms, and how forums might be designed to promote these forms of communication. Important associated issues concern who exactly should participate in these forums and on what terms, and the role that particular forums might play in larger systems of governance.

In this chapter, we emphasize in particular the role of design in promoting authentic, inclusive, and effective deliberation. Our aim is not so much to compare and contrast different types of deliberative forums but to look more broadly at how deliberation might be shaped by various design attributes such as the structure of the forum, its participants, and the authority and legitimacy of the forum.

We recognize at the outset that deliberation does not always need to be designed. Everyday political discussion can contribute to public deliberation (Conover, Searing, and Crewe 2001; Mansbridge 1999). In some instances, strategic or coercive forms of communication can "drift" into more deliberative modes, especially when actors learn to trust each other and have the freedom to shape their own procedures (McLaverty and Halpin 2008). Deliberation might also spontaneously emerge, be it within interest groups (Mansbridge 1992), in the larger public sphere (Habermas 1989), or even international negotiations (Risse 2000). It is worth emphasizing international negotiations on security affairs because on the face of it that is exactly the kind of place where deliberation should not emerge, as actors strive above all to maximize their relative advantage. Risse (2000) shows that communicative action in the Habermasian sense can be found in such negotiations, for example, when Soviet negotiators were persuaded that a united Germany within NATO posed less of a threat than if it were outside NATO.

We also acknowledge that designed forums are not the only settings in which deliberation can occur, and we have...