Suchergebnisse

In this study, youth participation in a participatory democracy project is examined at the intersection of the deontic and emotional order. The data are drawn from a yearlong participatory democracy project where 14–15-year-olds meet with politicians and public servants to decide on a vision for how the community should be in 2050. By analysing their interactions, the present study shows how adult community representatives elicit adolescents' negative emotional experiences and transform these into deontic building blocks in the impending decision-making. The analysis shows how the transformation of adolescents' negative emotional experiences casts the adolescents as emotional perceivers and deontic objects, a role they are shown to comply with. Furthermore, this sets up a proximal deontic order that, in turn, re-establishes a distal deontic order, both in which the adolescents' positions are subordinated and regulated. Ultimately, by inviting youths to participate in the democracy project itself as well as eliciting their negative emotional experiences the politicians and public servants are shown to use the youths as emotional gearwheels in an already set larger deontic machinery.

This study explores the social organization and the necessary involvement in accomplishing sharedness in joint decision-making, by adopting a members' perspective on food preparation. Prior research on joint decision-making has mostly focused on verbal analysis of institutional interactions, e.g. medical encounters. In contrast, the current study carries out a multimodal interaction analysis of joint decision-making in everyday informal cooking among friends. The analysis demonstrates a crucial function of embodied actions, such as bodily stance, eye gaze and manipulation of objects, in organizing and coordinating decision-making sequences. Since the decisions in this particular setting often are based on a multisensory access to the objects of decision, establishing and displaying epistemic access comprise a constitutive part of joint decision-making. In line with this, we show that not allowing for an epistemically equal point of departure, the participants may be sanctioned when not accessing the empirical object of decision, e.g., not tasting the sauce. In addition to shedding light on the temporal organization of actions and the epistemic ac- cess central to organizing joint decision-making, the study offers an understanding of how partici- pants as social actors constitute themselves as friends and family by means of making decisions shared in the midst of a mundane activity that constitutes daily life. ; https://doi.org/10.33063/diva-399804

What should count as legitimate forms of reasoning in public deliberation is a contested issue. Democratic theorists have argued that storytelling may offer a more accessible form of deliberation for marginalised citizens than 'rational argumentation'. We investigate the empirical support for this claim by examining Swedish citizens' use of storytelling in written communication with the political establishment. We test whether stories are used frequently, as well as by whom, and how they are used. We find that storytelling is (1) rare, (2) not more frequent among people with nonmainstream views, and (3) used together with rational argumentation. In line with some previous research, we show that stories still play other important roles: authorising the author, undermining political opponents and, most often, further supporting arguments made in 'rational' form. The results suggest that people rely more on rational argumentation than storytelling when expecting interlocutors to be hostile to their views.