From debate to dialogue:A conversation analysis of public meetings on the health effects of livestock farming in the Netherlands
The polarization in contemporary societies gives the impression that we live in a “debate society” in which people are occupied with persuading others of their positions. While debate may be useful, the focus on defending one’s own positions while excluding those of others hinders people’s attempts to understand and overcome their differences. Contrary to debate, within “dialogue” interactants aim at better understanding and transcending their differences. Focusing on recorded Dutch public meetings on the health effects of livestock farming and using conversation analysis, this dissertation ai... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Buch |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2022 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
s.n.
|
Schlagwörter: | conversatie analyse / dialoog / debat / publieke bijeenkomsten / alledaagse democratie / veehouderij / onderwerp- of sequentie-afsluiting / sociale solidariteit / wicked problems / conversation analysis / dialogue / debate / public meetings / ordinary democracy / livestock farming / topic or sequence closure / social solidarity |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28799988 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/ff36af05-cd91-4e70-b7b7-644a38241aa1 |
The polarization in contemporary societies gives the impression that we live in a “debate society” in which people are occupied with persuading others of their positions. While debate may be useful, the focus on defending one’s own positions while excluding those of others hinders people’s attempts to understand and overcome their differences. Contrary to debate, within “dialogue” interactants aim at better understanding and transcending their differences. Focusing on recorded Dutch public meetings on the health effects of livestock farming and using conversation analysis, this dissertation aims at redefining existing conceptions of “debate” and “dialogue”. It treats their establishment as existing in moments and focuses on what interactants themselves treat as “moments of debate” or “moments of dialogue”. These insights provide ideas on how people may transform their conversation from debate to dialogue. Chapter 2 addresses the ways residents in public information meetings use questioning as a “way in” to pursue an admission from experts, conveying that they have an issue with a research method, the risk surveillance, or risk-reducing technologies. By systematically challenging experts’ responses, residents exploit the interaction’s sequential organization such that the goal becomes being convinced rather than being informed. Chapter 3 addresses situations where citizens treat officials as “shelving” issues. This uptake is preceded by officials treating citizens as not understanding the scope of discussion. Citizens subsequently turn the tables on officials, treating them as not wanting to fulfill their democratic duties; implications which officials downplay immediately. The analyses in chapter 2 and 3 show participants’ orientations to debate and the “missed opportunities” for dialogue. Contrarily, chapter 4 and chapter 5 demonstrate participants’ orientations to dialogue. Chapter 4 reveals a template describing one way “dialogic moments” unfold within public meetings, starting with organizers’ queries which ...