The Issues Deserve More Credit

This paper explores the `issue-oriented' perspective on public involvement in politics opened up by recent research in Science and Technology Studies (STS). This research proposes that public controversy around techno-scientific issues is dedicated to the articulation of these issues and their eventual accommodation in society. It does not, however, fully answer the question of why issue formation should be appreciated as a crucial dimension of democratic politics. To address this question, I turn to the work of two early 20th-century American pragmatists: John Dewey and Walter Lippmann. In their work on democracy in industrial society, they conceived of public involvement in politics as being occasioned by, and providing a way to settle, controversies that existing institutions were unable to resolve. Moreover, Dewey developed a `socio-ontological' understanding of issues, which suggests that people's involvement in politics is mediated by problems that affect them. Dewey and Lippmann thus provide important argumentative resources for further elaborating the approach to public involvement developed in STS. STS research has also developed a `socio-ontological' approach, as it focuses on the `attachments' that people mobilize (and that mobilize people) in the performance of their concern with public affairs. Such an approach provides an alternative to discursivist analysis of the role of `issue framing' in the involvement of publics in politics.

[1]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[2]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[3]  Pippa Norris,et al.  Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism , 2002 .

[4]  P. Manicas.  Democratic Hope: Pragmatism and the Politics of Truth , 2006, Perspectives on Politics.

[5]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk As Globalising "Democratic" Discourse? Framing Subjects And Citizens , 2006 .

[6]  P. Lascoumes,et al.  Agir dans un monde incertain : essai sur la démocratie technique , 2001 .

[7]  S. Jasanoff.  Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science , 2003 .

[8]  Matthew Festenstein.  Pragmatism and Political Theory: From Dewey to Rorty , 1997 .

[9]  Amitai Etzioni.  Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[10]  Noortje Marres,et al.  No issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of politics , 2005 .

[11]  E. Gomart,et al.  Is That Politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics , 2002 .

[12]  Paul B. Thompson,et al.  Pragmatism, Discourse Ethics and Occasional Philosophy , 2002 .

[13]  W. Bennett.  The UnCivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics , 1998 .

[14]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and its Problems , 1927 .

[15]  Jonathon E. Mote,et al.  The laws of the markets , 2000 .

[16]  N. Marres,et al.  Landscaping climate change: a mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web , 2000 .

[17]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Pragmatist Ethics for a Technological Culture , 2002 .

[18]  S. Hinchliffe.  Indeterminacy in-decisions - science, policy and politics in the BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) crisis , 2001 .

[19]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[20]  W. Lance Bennett,et al.  The UnCivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics , 1998, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[21]  R. Rorty.  Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972-1980. , 1982 .

[22]  Scientific citizenships: self-representations of xenotransplantation's publics , 2005, Science as culture.

[23]  E. E. Schattschneider.  The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America , 1960 .

[24]  Antoine Hennion,et al.  A Sociology of Attachment: Music Amateurs, Drug Users , 1999 .

[25]  W. Bijker.  Democratisering van de technologische cultuur : mogelijkheden en beperkingen van technology assessment , 1995 .

[26]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[27]  Hernàndez i Dobon,et al.  Macht und Gegenmacht im globalen Zeitalter , 2004 .

[28]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[29]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  ‘Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination , 2005 .

[30]  B. Latour.  Give me a Laboratory and 1 will raise the Word , 1983 .

[31]  G. Vries,et al.  What is Political in Sub-politics? How Aristotle Might Help STS , 2007 .

[32]  A. Barry.  Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society , 2001 .

[33]  E. Carlson.  :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .

[34]  Jules Townshend,et al.  Power, A Radical View , 2007 .

[35]  A. Ryan.  John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism , 1995 .

[36]  M. Callon.  Europe wrestling with technology , 2004 .

[37]  J. Dryzek.  Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations , 2000 .

[38]  Jim Dratwa,et al.  Taking risks with the precautionary principle: food (and the environment) for thought at the European Commission , 2002 .

[39]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Science and citizens : globalization and the challenge of engagement , 2006 .

[40]  Bruno Latour,et al.  Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy , 1999 .

[41]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .