Affects in Online Stakeholder Engagement: A Dissensus Perspective

A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.

Rationality revisited: Politicisation through planning rationality against the rationality of power

In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

Alfred Wegeners theorie van continentendrift en haar rivalen : Rationele onenigheid en rationele consensus in de aardwetenschappen

Alfred Wegener’s Theory of Continental Drift and its Rivals. Rational Disagreement and Rational Consensus in the Earth SciencesAlfred Wegener launched the idea of continental drift (lateral motion of continents on the earth) early in the 20th century. In the period 1915-1930 he did not succeed to convince his fellow earth scientist to leave behind their old permanentist or contractionist theories and adopt his new theory. In the second half of the 20th century ‐ between 1960 and 1975 ‐ continental drift quickly became the dominant theory in the earth sciences. In this paper I analyse both episode by means of methodological concepts developed by Larry Laudan. I argue that the disagreement in the early days as well as the quickly emerging consensus in the second period are rational.

DISKURSUS AGAMA DALAM RUANG PUBLIK MENURUT JÃœRGEN HABERMAS

Today, the role of religions still exists in the public sphere. Habermas sees that religious citizens tend to give their aspirations in the public sphere in a destructive way. As a result, A religion is considered the cause of crime. Actually, It has a various positive benefits to be brought into the public sphere. Therefore, they can convey aspirations in a more appropriate way, namely through a religious discourse. The religious discourse is an act of discourse, that is a discussion with arguments to reach a rational consensus of the best arguments, in the realm of religion. It involves the religious, the secular, and the citizens. It also faces several challenges such as religious fundamentalism, religious privatization, and political religiofication, but it is very relevant to Indonesia, which has many religions and belief streams. Particularly, it is important to see how the relationship between religion and state in Indonesia in order to should be realized.

Conclusion

Concludes by considering the future of the struggle against misogyny, and the grounds for, if not pessimism, then a certain kind of self-protective, world-weary, and for all that, rational, anger. In the end, we may have to give up on achieving a rational consensus about the moral seriousness of the phenomenon, and convincing those more or less in its grip to make addressing misogyny a priority. The very phenomenon makes insisting that misogyny is a moral priority verboten even when justified, since women are often tasked with giving moral attention to designated others, rather than asking for it for their own sake. So those trying to combat misogyny should be prepared to keep struggling, in the sense of asserting girls’ and women’s entitlement to certain moral as well as material and social benefits.

La persona como fundamento de los Derechos Humanos. Person as the Ground of Human Rights

El discurso contemporáneo sobre los derechos humanos demanda para sí una fundamentación capaz de dar sustento de sus propios principios. Esta fundamentación se gesta a partir de dos modelos explicativos: por un lado, tenemos las éticas del discurso o procedimentales, cuya propuesta se centra en el estudio de todas aquellas condiciones de posibilidad del consenso racional, y, por otro lado, las éticas cuya estructura admite una fundamentación ontológica. La intención principal de este artículo es, por tanto, analizar ambas posturas a fin de mostrar que las éticas procedimentales presuponen un marco referencial ontológico, en virtud del cual es posible acceder al consenso racional.Contemporary speech about human rights requires to itself a foundation able to sustain its own principles. This foundation is brewing from two explicative models: in one hand we have got discursive or procedural ethics, which proposal is founded in the study of all those conditions of possibility of rational consensus, and, on the other hand, ethics which structure admits an ontological foundation. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to analyze both postures to demonstrate that procedural ethics presuppose an ontological frame of reference whereby is possible to accede to rational consensus.

Parfit the Perfectionist

I summarize and criticize Derek Parfit's impressive attempt to reconcile the Kantian and the Consequentialist approaches to moral thinking, and argue that his ‘cognitive non-naturalism’ fails to do justice to the roots of moral sentiment in personal relations. I outline the destructive effect of ‘trolley problems’ on ethical reasoning, and mount a case for seeing moral reasoning as a consequence of ‘reactive’ attitudes, arising from the attempt to reach a rational consensus in the things that we praise and blame.