Suchergebnisse

Väitöstutkimus analysoi julkisia poliittisia performansseja poliittisena viestintänä. Poliittiset performanssit voidaan ymmärtää julkisissa tiloissa toimeen pantuina 'näytöksinä', joiden tavoitteena on luoda arkisiin rutiineihin yllättäviä katkoksia ja synnyttää uutta toimintatilaa jonkin yhteiskunnallisen ongelman esiin nostamiseksi. Performanssit synnyttävät katkoksia monin tavoin, mutta erityisen leimallista niille on näkyvän, vallalla olevan visuaalisen järjestyksen murtaminen tuomalla siihen erilaisia 'häiritseviä' (disruptive) elementtejä: resistoivia kehoja, valtaa parodioivia kuvia, karnevalistista protestointia, katuteatteria jne. Poliittisten performanssien viestintä perustuu puheen sijaan tai ohella toimijoiden oman kehon ja sen kantamien erilaisten visuaalisten merkkien julkiseen esittämiseen, joskus hyvin äärimmäisellä tavalla, kuten esimerkiksi nälkälakoissa ja polttoitsemurhissa. Väitöskirjassa tällaista viestintätyyliä kutsutaan visuaaliseksi ja esteettiseksi politikoinniksi. Tutkimuksessa analysoidaan useita esimerkkejä performatiivisesta poliittisesta viestinnästä ja kehitetään teoreettisia ideoita sen ominaispiirteiden tulkitsemiseksi. ; In this doctoral thesis I study a phenomenon which I have titled as public political performance. By public political performance I refer to a public event (a 'show', display, demonstration) the purpose of which is to expose in public and challenge those social-political norms, practices, and relations of power which usually remain invisible in the sway of routine political life. I am interested especially in how performance works as a form of non-linguistic, or wider than linguistic, political communication. I theorize and analyze, through several illustrative examples, performances from three perspectives: as corporeal (bodily), visual, and aesthetic communication. In construction of theory I use and partly rework ideas from thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jacques Ranciere. The study shows that public political performance is a sensitive, even volatile phenomenon because it often manifestly exposes the fundamentally violent power structure of society – as when, for example, street demonstrations induce strong counter reactions from the police and political authorities – and puts this order under critical public scrutiny. Political authorities do not take such challenges lightly, which is why public performances sometimes instigate serious political controversies. The key theoretical ideas of the study relate to performance as something done and en/acted. On the one hand, performance discloses the nature of politics as a 'doing.' This means in simple terms that, in order to subsist, the political world needs to be done, performed, and 'iterated,' every time anew. The term performative describes this social-constructivist side of politics. That the constitution of the social and political power is based not on any 'natural' ground but on continuous re/iteration of certain ways and routines is often revealed only when it is visibly and noticeably disrupted. This is what political performance typically does. On the other hand, performance signifies a particular kind of public show which resembles but does not equal theatrical shows. Performance is theatrical in being an 'art-like' communicative act, yet it is more surprising and unpredictable compared to regular theatre and, because of this, usually more difficult to approach and interpret. Political performance as a contingent and sometimes oddly appearing public event with a surprise effect brings forth the importance of disruption for politics. It alerts us to situations where the normalized political performatives are being visibly questioned by bringing into public space – 'in your face' – diverse disrupting elements like resisting bodies, parodying images, and carnevalism. The relationship between these two, performatives and performances, creates an edgy and 'chiasmatic' political space from which much of political life gains its driving force. This basic idea and relationship constitute the key starting point for this study's theoretical reflections. Political performance is an important subject for political studies for several reasons. The purely knowledge-based reason is that that in directing attention to the corporeal and visual aspects of politics and political communication, performance brings into view phenomena and conceptual possibilities which are too often ignored by political researchers and theorists. The relevance of performance for the field can also be justified from another perspective, through reference to its political and democratic significance. The discussions and analyses carried out in the study show that there are political circumstances where citizens see public performance as the only available means of participation in political communication, with other channels of communication forbidden or marginalized. There are also situations where citizens create, through setting up a performance, space for public communication and action where it has not existed before. Political performance as a way of contesting existing political realities can therefore have special value for political freedom. Political and democratic theory needs to understand, I shall argue, also that category of political action which performs political freedom rather than asks for it.

Kansalaisosallistuminen YVA-menettelyssä Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn (YVA) yksi keskeinen tavoite on lisätä kansalaisten tiedonsaantia ja osallistumista ympäristövaikutuksiltaan merkittävissä hankkeissa. YVA-menettelyllä pyritään tuomaan kansalaisten näkemykset, huolet ja toiveet mukaan suunnitteluun ja päätöksentekoon mahdollisimman varhaisessa vaiheessa. YVA edustaa väitöstutkimuksessa modernia vuorovaikutteista ympäristöpolitiikan ohjauskeinoa ja osallistumisen välinettä. Väitöstyön ensimmäisenä tutkimustehtävänä oli luoda YVAan osallistumisen analyysille teoreettinen viitekehys: millaista demokratia- ja suunnitteluideaa YVA voi edustaa ja millainen politiikkaverkosto YVA on kansalaisosallistumisen kannalta. Toisena tutkimustehtävänä analysoitiin YVAan osallistumisen historiallista kehittymistä ja muutoksia Suomessa. Kolmantena tutkimustehtävänä tarkasteltiin osallistumisen käytännön toteutusta sekä arvioitiin osallistumisen vaikuttavuutta. Lisäksi analysoitiin vaikuttavuuden mahdollisia esteitä, miten läpinäkyviä ja avoimia YVA-menettelyt ovat ja miten hyväksyttävänä osallistumisvälineenä YVAa pidetään. Osallistumisen kannalta olennainen seikka on YVAn institutionaalisuus: se on julkishallinnon luoma väline, jonka lisäksi toimenharjoittajalla on keskeinen YVA-menettelyn käytännön toteuttajan rooli. Tämä luo osallistumisen kannalta rakenteita, joissa korostuu toimijoiden väliset epäsymmetriset valta-asemat. YVA-menettelystä tulee helposti kaikille osapuolille vallan käytön ja politiikan tekemisen väline ja niin osallistumisen järjestämistä kuin itse osallistumista ohjaavat toimijoiden poliittiset intressit ja tavoitteet. YVA on parhaimmillaan eri osapuolten välinen avoin keskusteluareena, joka lisää suunnittelun ja päätöksenteon läpinäkyvyyttä, mutta YVA on myös poliittisen kamppailun areena. Suomen YVA-lainsäädännössä osallistumisella on aina ollut tärkeä rooli. Suomalaisessa YVA-järjestelmässä on korostettu kansalaisten osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Ajan saatossa myös kriittisyys laajaa osallistumisoikeutta ja useita osallistumismahdollisuuksia kohtaan on lieventynyt. Haaste on kuitenkin siinä, että osallistumisen toteutus määritellään laissa väljästi, eikä lainsäädäntö takaa laadukasta osallistumista tai varsinkaan sen vaikuttavuutta. Toinen havaittu haaste on YVAn ja osallistumisen suhde päätöksentekoon. YVAn ulkopuoliset päätöksentekojärjestelmät ja edustuksellisen vallankäytön rakenteet eivät ole muuttuneet, ja siksi YVAn vaikuttavuus voi jäädä vähäiseksi. Vaikka YVA edustaisikin osallistuvaa demokratiaa ja toteuttaisi vuorovaikutteista ja moniäänistä suunnittelua, voi osallistumisen merkitys vesittyä ja kansalaisten osallistumisaktiivisuus hiipua. Ilmiöön liittyy myös tarpeetonta kriittisyyttä. Osallistumisen vaikuttavuus ei ole kertaluonteista, vaan se on usein välillistä ja ajoittuu prosessin eri vaiheisiin. Osallistumisen merkitystä ja vaikutuksia ei aina tunnisteta. YVAsta ei ole muodostunut Suomessa laajojen joukkojen osallistumisvälinettä. Ennemminkin YVAan osallistuvat tyypillisesti harvat kansalaisaktiivit, jotka hyödyntävät YVAn lisäksi lukuisia muitakin osallistumisen ja vaikuttamisen keinoja. Osallistujien määrän sijaan huomio tulee kuitenkin kiinnittää sisältöön ja suunnittelun moniäänisyyteen. Olennainen kysymys on se, millaisen roolin kansalaiset ja maallikkoasiantuntijuus voivat saada perinteisesti asiantuntijavetoisessa suunnittelukulttuurissa. ; Public participation in environmental impact assessment Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a policy instrument based in law and used to prevent harmful environmental impacts, increase public information access, and improve public participation opportunities. EIA is an open process for discussion and participation of different actors: it increases the transparency and broadens the information base of environmental policy planning and decision making. One aim of EIA is to incorporate citizens views and opinions, concerns and desires into planning at an early stage. EIA is a process of identifying and evaluating potential impacts from proposed activities. It is also an interactive and communicative policy instrument and should facilitate direct participation. EIA is an example in the development process of direct participation in Finland during 1990 s. In this study EIA is approached as a participation instrument. Public participation is the perspective from which the EIA-process is analysed. The aim of the research is to examine participation in EIA both a theoretical and empirical way, and to interpret and explain the operation logic and efficacy of participation. There are three main research tasks in the study. The first task is to create a theoretical framework for analysis of public participation in EIA. For this purpose, the theoretical and methodological triangulation is made in the study. There are four main parts in the triangulation. Firstly, the elements of participative and deliberative democracy and communicative planning theories are combined. This theoretical discussion shows what kind of democracy and planning EIA can represents. Secondly, network analysis and evaluation are integrated in the methodological triangulation. The concepts of policy networks and intervention theory are used in theoretical and methodological manner. The outcomes of theoretical and methodological triangulation are criteria of deliberative EIA and four policy network models of EIA as an instrument of public participation: 1) EIA as a negotiation process; 2) EIA as a technical process of information collection, 3) EIA as an information instrument; and 4) EIA as tool for controlling of participation. While the theoretical part of the thesis has its own analytical objectives, these policy network models are utilized with evaluation criteria in the empirical part of the study. The second research task is to analyse the historical development of participation in Finnish EIA legislation. The focus of this part is on the long lasting political process and arguments behind the enacting of Finnish EIA Act in 1980 s and 1990 s. The most important amendments of EIA legislation and the international and national reasons behind them are also considered. According to results of this part of thesis, the role of participation has been central to the Finnish EIA system. Even if the EIA Act was implemented in Finland relatively late in 1994, the legislative foundation for public participation has always been strong. Though the implementation of participation is defined in a flexible way, Finnish EIA legislation supports public participation and in principle creates possibilities for deliberative democracy. The third research task is to evaluate public participation in two case studies. This part includes following questions: 1) what kind of objectives do different actors seek from participation; 2) how does participation impact EIA and what are the obstacles of effective participation; and 3) how transparent and acceptable is the EIA process? The two cases used, the EIA of a road project and the final disposal of nuclear waste, show how much the aims, the implementation and the effectiveness of public participation can not only vary between different projects, but also during the planning process in one certain project. Notably, in the nuclear waste case, the nature of top-down instrument of EIA was clearly observed, while the developer of the project assumed a dominant role. The three elements of policy network (actors, arenas and agenda) were defined by the developer. Even if participation was carried out with great visibility, professional implementation and sufficient resources, the impact of public participation and lay people expertise was not so essential, while the economic and political interests of the project and the role of experts were in central role. In this case study EIA represents the policy network model of controlling of participation: the role of governance was more important than deliberative participation. In the road case the planning situation was more open. There did not seem to be the same need to define and control participation and the agenda of the EIA. The contribution of citizens was used in planning in a more effective manner. The EIA assumed a more traditional role ­ as an information distribution tool, and as a place for open discussion and effective participation. The case studies suggest that the legislative base can not alone guarantee the effectiveness of public participation. Most important factor is the attitude of main actors. Each EIA process is unique and general theories of participation in EIA are difficult to create. In practice, the EIA is more or less an institutional process of power division between different actors, and the developer has the central role. EIA is an open arena that allows political disagreements to form and emerge into the open. However, EIA can also be used to promote political interests. EIA and participation can be harnessed by the proponent, but EIA can also feed the so called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. It is also possible, that policy instruments like EIA create a new elite ­ active lay experts. Theoretical ideas of deliberative democracy or communicative planning are challenging to implement in practice. At the same time it is important to estimate the criteria and expectations concerning participation. One can see, that EIA has lot of deliberative potential, but the main challenges are in the relationship between EIA and decision making, and in the structures of political power and decision making outside of EIA.