This is not a Pipe: Rationality and Affect in European Public Debate

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    118 Downloads (Pure)

    Resumé

    There is a deep discrepancy between political actors’ official calls for public debate in and on the European Union and the debates in which European publics actually partake. Top-down invitations to debate in the deliberative mode leave the citizens cold, and political actors are unable or unwilling to listen to, let alone engage with, emotionally guided bottom-up participation. Using an illustrative case of a Danish public debate over an alleged ban on liquorice pipes, this article argues that the disconnect between invitation and participation may be explained by the fact that representatives of (national and European) political institutions tend to rely on a simplified version of deliberative democracy. This implies privileging rational truth claims at the expense of emotional truthfulness. Connecting invitation and participation, it is argued, requires a reconciliation of rationality and affect within the deliberative paradigm that may enable the conceptualization and practice of public debate as affective rationality.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftCommunication and the Public
    Vol/bind1
    Udgave nummer3
    Sider (fra-til)276-289
    Antal sider14
    ISSN2057-0473
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2016

    Emneord

    • Affect
    • Deliberation
    • EU-debate
    • Rationality

    Citer dette

    @article{0efa91c29457461a85902e8ef4d2ec3f,
    title = "This is not a Pipe: Rationality and Affect in European Public Debate",
    abstract = "There is a deep discrepancy between political actors’ official calls for public debate in and on the European Union and the debates in which European publics actually partake. Top-down invitations to debate in the deliberative mode leave the citizens cold, and political actors are unable or unwilling to listen to, let alone engage with, emotionally guided bottom-up participation. Using an illustrative case of a Danish public debate over an alleged ban on liquorice pipes, this article argues that the disconnect between invitation and participation may be explained by the fact that representatives of (national and European) political institutions tend to rely on a simplified version of deliberative democracy. This implies privileging rational truth claims at the expense of emotional truthfulness. Connecting invitation and participation, it is argued, requires a reconciliation of rationality and affect within the deliberative paradigm that may enable the conceptualization and practice of public debate as affective rationality.",
    keywords = "Affect, Deliberation, EU-debate, Rationality, Affect, Deliberation, EU-debate, Rationality",
    author = "Just, {Sine N{\o}rholm}",
    year = "2016",
    doi = "10.1177/2057047316655810",
    language = "English",
    volume = "1",
    pages = "276--289",
    journal = "Communication and the Public",
    issn = "2057-0473",
    publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd.",
    number = "3",

    }

    This is not a Pipe : Rationality and Affect in European Public Debate. / Just, Sine Nørholm.

    I: Communication and the Public, Bind 1, Nr. 3, 2016, s. 276-289.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - This is not a Pipe

    T2 - Rationality and Affect in European Public Debate

    AU - Just, Sine Nørholm

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - There is a deep discrepancy between political actors’ official calls for public debate in and on the European Union and the debates in which European publics actually partake. Top-down invitations to debate in the deliberative mode leave the citizens cold, and political actors are unable or unwilling to listen to, let alone engage with, emotionally guided bottom-up participation. Using an illustrative case of a Danish public debate over an alleged ban on liquorice pipes, this article argues that the disconnect between invitation and participation may be explained by the fact that representatives of (national and European) political institutions tend to rely on a simplified version of deliberative democracy. This implies privileging rational truth claims at the expense of emotional truthfulness. Connecting invitation and participation, it is argued, requires a reconciliation of rationality and affect within the deliberative paradigm that may enable the conceptualization and practice of public debate as affective rationality.

    AB - There is a deep discrepancy between political actors’ official calls for public debate in and on the European Union and the debates in which European publics actually partake. Top-down invitations to debate in the deliberative mode leave the citizens cold, and political actors are unable or unwilling to listen to, let alone engage with, emotionally guided bottom-up participation. Using an illustrative case of a Danish public debate over an alleged ban on liquorice pipes, this article argues that the disconnect between invitation and participation may be explained by the fact that representatives of (national and European) political institutions tend to rely on a simplified version of deliberative democracy. This implies privileging rational truth claims at the expense of emotional truthfulness. Connecting invitation and participation, it is argued, requires a reconciliation of rationality and affect within the deliberative paradigm that may enable the conceptualization and practice of public debate as affective rationality.

    KW - Affect

    KW - Deliberation

    KW - EU-debate

    KW - Rationality

    KW - Affect

    KW - Deliberation

    KW - EU-debate

    KW - Rationality

    UR - https://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=4160000000000259

    U2 - 10.1177/2057047316655810

    DO - 10.1177/2057047316655810

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 1

    SP - 276

    EP - 289

    JO - Communication and the Public

    JF - Communication and the Public

    SN - 2057-0473

    IS - 3

    ER -