This is not a Pipe

Rationality and Affect in European Public Debate

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

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
ISSN2057-0473
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2016
Udgivet eksterntJa

Citer dette

@article{4da60baccfa1415c8927016e0592ceeb,
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.",
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",
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.

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 -