Discourse & Society

Discourse & Society
http://das.sagepub.com
Daily political communication and argumentation in direct democracy:

advocates and opponents of nuclear energy
Uli Windisch
Discourse Society 2008; 19; 85
DOI: 10.1177/0957926507083690
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/85
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Discourse & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com by camelia B on May 29, 2008

2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
ARTICLE
Windisch: Daily political communication and argumentation
85
Daily political communication and

argumentation in direct democracy:
advocates and opponents of
nuclear energy1
ULI WINDISCH
Discourse & Society

Copyright 2008
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 19(1): 8598
10.1177/0957926507083690
U N I V E R S I T Y O F G E N E VA , S W I T Z E R L A N D
In a direct democracy, the public and media debate by

ABSTRACT
referendums and popular votes presupposes a particular type of political
communication and argumentation. The example chosen is the debate
between the advocates and opponents of nuclear energy, a very conflictual
debate based on daily argumentation which cannot be defined as simply
irrational. There are specific logics involved. The struggle for social and
political representation and the game of placementdisplacement are
fundamental. Specific discourse strategies permit the definition of a
larger conception of argumentation and a multidimensional approach
to communication and discourse, as well as shade typologies of effective
discourses.
KEY WORDS:
conflictual communication, daily argumentation, debates in direct

democracy, discourse strategy, discourses typology, interdisciplinary discourse
analysis, political communication, popular votes, social representations,
socio-cognitive mechanisms
Democracy by referendum:
ongoing participation by citizens
Although there has been an undoubted revival in studies on argumentation,
it is also clear that theoretical and philosophical texts far outnumber empirical ones.
Our research falls unequivocally on the side of those aiming to contribute
to a better understanding of argumentation by placing it on a broad and robust
empirical base. The focus of this study is ordinary political argumentation within
the Swiss political system of direct democracy. This democracy by referendum

86
Discourse & Society 19(1)
presupposes a particular type of political communication, based upon genuine

and ongoing citizen participation.
More specifically, Swiss citizens are required, around four or five times a year,
to express a view on a maximum of 15 subjects of current political concern. At
each of these popular votes, citizens are invited to give their views (by voting
YES or NO) on three or four problems of national interest, to which a number of
other cantonal or municipal issues may well be added. This system of popular
consultation is based upon the popular initiative and the referendum, which
enable a minority (100,000 citizens for a popular initiative or 50,000 for a
referendum) to oblige the country as a whole to focus on an issue that concerns
them.
Unlike centralized states in which citizens are rarely called upon to vote
(and then only at election time), the Swiss are invited to participate actively and
continually in public debate on current issues of daily life. This gives rise to a
sort of public forum and public debate, and, consequently, to political communication and argumentation of a very specific nature one that is inherently deliberative and participative, and therefore at the opposite end of the spectrum from
political systems that are based on government by decree.
We studied the forms of political argumentation used during information
campaigns and debates preceding these votes, using as examples certain hot or
burning topics subjects on which views are polarized and where the outcome
is considered to be vital; in other words, highly controversial issues. Examples
of these topics were the nuclear issue, the army, experiments on animals,
immigration, abortion, ecology and the environment popular initiatives which
sought, for example, to abolish the Swiss army or animal experimentation,
to make abortion illegal, or to drastically reduce the size of the immigrant
population (Windisch, 1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1995, 2002).
Everyday forms of argumentation: readers letters

Because we are interested in ordinary, everyday forms of argumentation, we
ignored the writings and speeches of political leaders or parties, and instead
used as our material letters written by ordinary citizens. The majority of Swiss
newspapers devote considerable space to letters from their readers. This accords with the spirit of widespread public debate implicit in a referendum-based
democracy. At the time of votes on hotly debated issues, newspapers are flooded
with readers letters, and ordinary citizens, as well as experts, are able to see
their message in print.
We have an archive of readers letters containing tens of thousands of
messages on a wide range of social and political subjects going back some 20
years. We consider that this empirical source material provides a privileged
insight into ordinary political argumentation. By using this type of approach
it should also be possible to typify argumentation in more subtle and appropriate ways.

What kind of political communication?

As regards political communication in its true sense, different models have been
proposed for the study of political practices from this standpoint (Gerstl, 1992).
Political activity is inexorably bound up with communication. Wolton (1991)
offered the following definition of political communication: a forum for the
exchange of the views of three players perfectly entitled to express themselves
publicly on politics, namely politicians, journalists and public opinion via the
opinion polls. Based on this model, therefore, there are three players in the
communication process politicians, journalists and public opinion via opinion
polls (our emphasis). Although a model of this type is undoubtedly suitable for
a country like France, it will soon become clear how great the differences are
between this and the Swiss political system. Obviously, the difference relates
solely to the third of these players. It is inconceivable in a fundamentally
participative and deliberative political system to restrict popular political
participation public opinion to opinion polls. The Swiss people would not
stand for it!
The first two components of the model are, however, very similar. Politicians
are, of course, key players in political communication; journalists also have a
very active role since, at the time of each popular vote (and not merely during
elections), they are required to provide information and prepare dossiers on the
issues being put to the vote (with every major newspaper striving to present
as comprehensively as possible the topic, the different positions held and the
protagonists involved). Journalists also have a role in stimulating public debate
which is especially lively when weighty issues are at stake in the weeks
running up to date of the vote.
It is this daily, in vivo aspect of political communication that we intend to
analyse. Obtaining a better understanding of this type of participative political
system could be of wider relevance, as the zeitgeist of our age is the universal
demand for increased participation. Citizens and consumers are no longer
prepared to put up with mere passive acceptance of decisions and choices
made by others on their behalf. Everyone wants to become an active player, to
take hold of their everyday life and environment to participate rather than
being sidelined by experts. Moreover, a number of countries with centralized
political systems are looking for institutional solutions to bridge the everwidening gap between the political class and the population as a whole, a
gulf of which ordinary citizens are becoming increasingly conscious (surveys
have shown that in France, for example, over 80% of the population would like to
be able to express their views in a referendum; certain parts of the French political
establishment have therefore debated the introduction of a popular initiative
referendum as a way of consulting the nation on matters of importance).
We use a single example to illustrate the operation of political communication and argumentation in a system of direct democracy, namely the vote on
nuclear energy held on 29 September 1990. The electoral body was required
to pronounce on two popular initiatives from anti-nuclear groups, one of which

87
88
proposed to abandon nuclear energy altogether, while the other wished to

introduce a moratorium, a 10-year pause before taking a decision on whether
to abandon it. The first of these initiatives was rejected by 52.9 percent of voters
(although certain cantons did approve the plan to abandon nuclear energy,
notably the French-speaking cantons Geneva, the Jura and Neuchtel, with
the exception of Valais and Fribourg), whereas the moratorium was approved
by 54.6 percent of voters. Switzerland can therefore continue to operate its existing nuclear power stations, but may not build any more.
Our chosen material, readers letters, was selected in light of the intended
aim of the study. Extensive analysis has been carried out of the content of the
speeches of political parties or the leaders of political movements, and of the
way in which the issues are presented by the governing class, specialists and
the elite. Our decision to use readers letters is intended to provide insight into
political argumentation as it can be observed at the level of the population as a
whole, i.e. among ordinary citizens.
What is a multidimensional discourse analysis?

Much analysis is also limited to an identification of the content and themes of
political discourse. Our intention is to add further questions relating to analysis
of this discourse, social and political representation, the construction of images
(both of the writers and of their opponents) and the placement strategy used
during the cut and thrust of this adversarial communication.
We analyse not only what the supporters and opponents of nuclear energy
say, but also how they make their points and address one another. Some of the
questions that guided the analysis of this source material are:
1. What discursive strategies and mechanisms are employed to achieve the
desired aim?
2. How do speakers treat their opponents and the opponents messages when
they are in conflict with one another?
3. What image or social representation do speakers seek to transmit both of
themselves and of their opponents, and what type of discourse do they use
to achieve this?
4. What strategies are used in the discourse or argumentation to try to justify
the speakers own position and to invalidate that of the opponent?
5. What placement and positioning strategies are used to capture the most
advantageous ground vis--vis the public as witness (a vital player in political
communication) and simultaneously to displace the opponent? Are specific
aspects of the discourse used to embarrass opponents and create a negative
image of them in the public mind?
6. What techniques do speakers use to construct, simultaneously, a positive
image of themselves and a negative one of their opponents?
7. What discursive strategies and styles of discourse and argumentation are
used to gain acceptance of the speakers ideas, discourse and representations

by different or even diametrically opposed target audiences? What is

the approach used by consummate debaters who are able to appeal to very
different audiences?
The key focus of our approach is therefore the form and operation of political
argumentation used in adversarial communications between the supporters
and opponents of nuclear energy. Our approach should also help to de-reify
argumentation, as it will become an activity, a continuous process of construction
and reconstruction used by a person acting, speaking and arguing, developing
an important cognitive, discursive and argumentative system and displaying
a high level of skill and mastery of language. That is all a very long way from
the image of an individual as a cultural imbecile, mechanically reproducing a
predetermined ready-made programme.
The main topics and socio-cognitive mechanisms

of nuclear debates
Content analysis shows that there are only a handful of topics debated between
the advocates and opponents of nuclear energy (who, for the sake of simplicity,
we call pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear). These topics are: safety, the problem
of nuclear waste, the potential threat posed to nuclear power stations by
war, economic implications, ecological implications and alternative solutions
(renewable sources of energy).
However, these topics tell us nothing about the argumentation deployed by
those involved in the debate when writing letters to the press to defend their
position, or attack another position, or to go one better and attack and defend
at the same time. Political argumentation used in this type of adversarial
communication is, fundamentally, interactive and dialogic. At the start of an
information campaign, messages reach the newspapers, followed very quickly
by further messages refuting the first, and then yet others in support of them,
and so on until the day of the vote. This aspect, which is dynamic, procedural
and formative for argumentation, can be followed empirically. Argumentation
is the result of this process of interaction and mutual rebuttal of a succession
of opposing messages. These interactions are both adversarial and formative:
political argumentation consists of discursive activities which are themselves
the result of formative adversarial interactions.
It is not necessary to analyse the deployment of these activities in respect of
all the above-mentioned themes; a few examples will suffice to show the activity at
work in political argumentation in a situation of adversarial communication.2
First, we look at the theme of the safety of nuclear power stations. From
the outset, the anti-nuclear lobby seeks to strike a powerful blow by evoking the
spectre of the Chernobyl accident (26 April 1986); great emphasis is placed on
this accident and many writers use this argument as proof that nuclear safety
cannot be guaranteed. This is one of the key arguments in the debate, and by
using it the anti-nuclear camp is well aware that they have an argument that

89
90
is not based solely on empirical and rational data. Since the accident, the very
term Chernobyl has become highly emotive and achieves a much more intense
level of representation than a simple calculation of the risk. The word is exploited
and linked to a more general sense of foreboding about the future. By using a
discourse relying on the amalgamation and association of ideas, nuclear energy
is linked to the term Chernobyl, which is synonymous with a poisoned future:
Chernobyl has destroyed confidence in nuclear energy for years to come. As
regards the logic of the argument, this is based on a principle of generalization,
a process of inference from individual fact to universal truth, a generalization
which implies that history will repeat itself (something that has happened once
is likely to happen again anywhere and at any time).
This anti-nuclear argument is also based on other assumptions: (i) that there
is no fundamental difference between Soviet and western nuclear reactors; and
(ii) that there is no fundamental difference between safety standards in the east
and in the west.
Particular play is made on the word fundamental by arguing not that there
is no difference, but that there is no fundamental difference.
By using a cognitive mechanism known as essentialization, nuclear energy
becomes intrinsically evil, an essence, an embodiment of evil.
Inference from the particular to the general involves the attribution of causality to Chernobyl, based on the following common ground (topoi): man is the
same everywhere. If Chernobyl is a criminal act, then it could also happen here,
because man is the same everywhere (inference). Something that has happened
once is liable to recur at any time, irrespective of the circumstances.
Supporters of nuclear energy, by contrast, emphasize the differences between western and eastern nuclear power stations, and these differences,
which make any comparison impossible, rule out any cognitive and discursive
mechanism of generalization and essentialization. A completely different type
of logic is employed. The pro-nuclear lobby even makes a metalinguistic analysis
of their opponents discourse, describing the logic of an argument based on
generalization as a sham. For them, Chernobyl would be technically impossible in
the west. The cause of the Chernobyl accident was, in their view, interference by
the bureaucracy of a collectivist regime in a field which was outside its remit.
Here, we see the formative dimension of the discursive conflict, because the
pro-nuclear discourse and argumentation are based on contestation, negation
and rebuttal of the anti-nuclear discourse.
There is, however, more than one strand to the pro-nuclear discourse. Within
the same camp, a number of different types of discourse coexist. Pro-nuclear
discourse varies from an argued discourse to a far more affective one, which
condemns and accuses the nuclear opponents, inveighing against them.
A strategy frequently used to attack both an opposing discourse and the
opponents image is exposure (facts that the opponent wishes to hide are exposed
to the public as witness: what you are not saying is . . ., this is what you are
trying to hide from the voters . . .).

The pro-nuclear camp accuse their opponents of trying to deceive and

frighten the voters, or of being left-wingers seeking to sabotage the market
economy by depriving it of energy.
Why dont you demand the dismantling of nuclear power stations in the
east? Maybe it is because they belong to your comrades. Arguments of this
type are an attempt both to expose opponents and besmirch their image as far
as possible. Here, the discourse becomes more affective, ascribing negative and
sinister intentions to the opponents, who are painted as plotters and demagogues
trying to take advantage of honest citizens. The alarmist and apocalyptic
tone of the anti-nuclear camp is berated. After denouncing adversaries and
blackening their image as much as possible with the public as witness (future
voters), a calmer and more reasoned discourse can then be adopted, seeking,
for instance, to take the heat out of the debate and presenting the issue on
the basis of purely scientific evidence. This type of statement also carries the
implication that the opponents are not basing their case on scientific evidence
and are therefore irrational or engaged in some process of disinformation.
This, at least, is the image they seek to convey of the opponents. Speech and
argument combine to construct, simultaneously, an image of the speaker and of
the opponents. Emphasizing the scientific basis of my argument is tantamount
to implicitly accusing my opponent of being unscientific a demagogue, for
example particularly in a situation of adversarial communication. Because
political argumentation is a process based on a series of adversarial discursive
interactions, the discourse of each protagonist will change and develop as a result
of these interactions and the reception given to them by the reading public.
The anti-nuclear camp may also adopt more than one type of discourse,
for example, by shading their initial position which may have been invalidated
by subsequent contributors. The aim, in this public forum and debate, is to try
to convince the greatest possible number of voters by the time polling day
arrives. How should the anti-nuclear side react to the accusation that they
are demonizing nuclear power, and to the argument of difference between the
nuclear power stations of the east and those of the west?
In such a situation of political communication, use can be made of the
concession, i.e. conveying the image of someone able to concede something to
his or her opponent, even if it is ultimately with the sole aim of trouncing that
opponent more effectively, in the hope of attracting part of the opponents supporters precisely as a result of this apparent concession.
We see the following types of concession: of course western nuclear power
stations are safer, but this safety is merely relative, and there is no such thing as
absolute safety; although western nuclear power stations are safe and reliable,
the basic problem is nuclear waste.
Here, two strategies are at work, two logicaldiscursive mechanisms of argumentation, namely relativization and displacement.
Relativization of course western nuclear power stations are safer, but
that does not mean than an accident couldnt happen is a probabilistic type
of argument: an accident can always happen, although the probability is low.

91
92 Discourse & Society 19(1)
Despite the concession, the association of nuclear energy with danger persists.
We can add arguments that also aim to induce a cognitive response in readers
by using, for example, the rhetorical question: is it acceptable? (the risk, even
a small one), combined with an insinuation (would it not be better to abandon
nuclear energy in any event?).
Displacement is a different strategy. Although acknowledging, once again,
the validity of the opponents argument (or appearing to do so) an attempt
is made to shift the discussion onto a different problem: although the risk is
small, the real problem is a different one, namely nuclear waste. Displacing the
problem in this way implies that the opponents in this case the pro-nuclear
camp are addressing the wrong problem, and it seeks to portray them as people
incapable of seeing the key issues at stake. This sort of displacement also implies
a presuppositional refutation which (unlike propositional refutation which is
merely a rejection of the opponents position) consists in declining to discuss the
merits of the opponents case by rejecting the opponents very presuppositions,
or at least the presuppositions ascribed to the opponent.
While a given strategy serves to counter the opponents discourse, we can
also see to what extent it simultaneously induces a certain image of the speaker
(the one able to discern the real problem) and of the opponent (the one who has
failed to raise the real problem, namely the danger from nuclear waste).
Waste is the second theme in the verbal battle between the supporters and
opponents of nuclear energy. For the anti-nuclear lobby, this theme of waste represents a further opportunity to essentialize nuclear energy, to try to besmirch
its image in a quintessential aspect, because waste would be inherently dangerous
irrespective of its type or of the conditions under which it is stored. This negative
assessment becomes a sufficient condition to justify abandoning nuclear energy.
What gives legitimacy to this negative essentialization is not any particular
fact, but rather the image induced by possible radioactive contamination. In
a discursive conflict, we can see how important more than the mere facts of
the case is the simultaneous struggle surrounding the type of image each side
seeks to achieve by developing its discourse and argumentation.
The struggle to impose a social and political representation may be more
decisive than what is said on any given topic, i.e. than the truth or falseness of a
proposition. This shows the limitations of a pure analysis of content, and proves
the need for multidimensional approaches both in relation to content, discursive
and argumentative activity, placement strategies, the construction of images and
representations, and the validation or invalidation of the various discourses.
In the logic of anti-nuclear arguments about waste, we can see the inclusive
relationship established between waste and nuclear energy: because waste is,
by definition, dangerous (essentialization) and because it falls within the
generic ambit of nuclear energy, it represents a fresh argument in support of the
demand to abandon nuclear power.
A second, more subtle discourse is also at work here. Although it may be
conceded that waste is not essentially dangerous, it still represents a danger as
a result of global political/military instability (the possibility that in the event
of war, a bomb could fall onto a nuclear power station or a waste-storage site).

A generalizing induction may be based upon the common ground of repetitive

history: wars have always existed, therefore there will be wars in the future.
This makes it impossible to guarantee that a storage site for nuclear waste will
always be safe.
The pro-nuclear lobby barely even debate the hypothetical danger that
nuclear waste may represent. They even stigmatize this type of argument based
on ifs, and propose shifting the debate to one based on hard and contemporary
facts.
Supporters of nuclear power prefer to work on developing an image of the
anti-nuclear camp which they would like the public as witness to share. They
seek to show that opponents of nuclear energy are both inconsistent and
egotistical because if they want to put a stop to nuclear power, they should be
suggesting that it be stopped at once, rather than at some time during the twentyfirst century, so they can avoid the consequences of such a decision.
Although the pro-nuclear side does make reference to the issue of waste,
this is merely to say that the problem is more psychological than technical.
Technically, solutions will always be found (the pro-nuclear lobby has an
optimistic view of the world and sees science positively as a source of continuous progress, whereas the opponents of nuclear power see things in catastrophic
terms), but the population has certain fears which the anti-nuclear lobby will
have no hesitation in fermenting and on which they will play unjustifiably.
In adversarial communication, each argument is immediately taken up,
transformed and turned back against the party first using it. In relation to waste,
the anti-nuclear side are, once again, presented as inconsistent and egotistical
because they benefit from nuclear energy without being prepared to assume the
onus of storing the waste it produces.
The pro-nuclear side also appeals to relativization, stressing that nuclear
waste is less of a pollutant than the use of other fuels.
In relation to the reprocessing of nuclear waste, the opponents of nuclear
energy once again conjure up an embodiment of evil, referring to poisoned
cargoes, secret shipments, abandoned at sea, and ghost ships to be disposed
of . The aim is to expose their opponents, to unearth aspects they would prefer
not to discuss and to tell it as it is. The pro-nuclear lobby refuses to discuss the
merits and, instead, displaces the argument by turning to a problem considered
as more fundamental, namely radioactivity. On this topic, which also has
extremely strong connotations, they try to lead readers to distinguish between
fears surrounding radioactivity and the reality, which appears to show that the
additional radioactivity due to nuclear energy is marginal and has no effect on
health. They even try to ridicule the anti-nuclear camp (i.e. create an image
of it that makes it appear worthy of derision) on the grounds of its search for
radioactivity where none exists.
Contrary to expectations, pro-nuclear lobbyists are happy to discuss ecological arguments; ground on which they feel perfectly at ease. They even accuse
their opponents of having little serious interest in ecology and of only being
interested in using it to defeat nuclear energy (exposure). They try to show that

93
94
if the anti-nuclear view prevailed, this would result in worse pollution because
nuclear energy would have to be replaced with other, more polluting, sources of
energy. An attempt is also made to discredit the opposition in another way.
The greenhouse effect is often evoked in connection with the nuclear debate.
For supporters of nuclear power, nuclear energy is the ideal substitute to combat
the greenhouse effect, while its opponents emphatically deny (indeed accusing
the other camp of demagogy) that nuclear energy reduces the greenhouse effect.
Although in the slightly more subtle version of their discourse they acknowledge
that nuclear energy does not fuel the greenhouse effect (concession) they are
quick to displace the problem by pointing out that, in any event, renewable and
clean sources of energy are preferable.
On a number of occasions, the pro-nuclear lobby has tried to show that its
discourse is based on hard facts, an awareness of reality and specialist, objective
knowledge supported by eminent scientists including Nobel prize winners
(with the inference that their opponents discourse possesses none of these
attributes).
The anti-nuclear lobby constantly uses the argument of energy saving.
Supporters of nuclear power concede that it is a fundamental problem, but
immediately add that, despite numerous appeals to save energy, electricity consumption is continuing to rise. The opposing argument is therefore conceded,
although at the same time shown to be irrelevant and Utopian (Utopian is
another aspect of the image with which the pro-nuclear lobby seeks to brand
its opponents).
For its supporters, nuclear energy is vital to underpinning growth and the
market economy; accordingly, surrendering 40 percent of energy (the nuclear
contribution) would put the populations living standards and well-being in
serious danger (I refuse to stop, says the author of a pro-nuclear letter).
On the opposing side, more emphasis is placed on the need for a qualitative
change in society, the promotion of a different type of economy, decentralized
forms of energy, and less materialism arguments quickly taken up, transformed
and condemned as Utopian, unrealistic, masochistic and ascetic. The pronuclear side then counters this stark asceticism with a level-headed well-being,
consistent with traditional and ancestral wisdom (contrasting images).
Opponents of nuclear energy are quick to deny that abandoning nuclear
power would ruin the economy. They refer to a report by experts, commissioned
by the government, in support of this view. However, the report has been challenged and has not become the official position, particularly as certain experts
within the group had distanced themselves from its conclusions. In terms of
a legitimation strategy, it is clearly better to rely on sources that cannot be
undermined so easily.
The structure of the above anti-nuclear argument can be expressed even
more succinctly: a group of experts states P (X states P); the experts are competent
people (X is competent); therefore P is true. The generalization is apparent: based
on the fact that it is an expert report (forgetting that it was seriously questioned)
it is deduced that its contents are true. Also, although they previously criticized
supposedly specialist knowledge, science and scientific progress, science is now

used in support of the argument. This superficiality, inconsistency, etc. does

not escape the notice of pro-nuclear campaigners in their definition of the image
of their opponents. When engaged in adversarial communication, there is the
ever-present danger of making life easy for ones opponent.
The more deeply we analyse this discursive conflict, the clearer it becomes
that the protagonists general styles of argumentation are different. The more
materialistic and economic discourse of the pro-nuclear side is matched with
a more voluntarist, idealistic discourse, tinged with a committed subjectivity.
Each term used by one of the protagonists is immediately seized upon and challenged by the opponents: the idealistic commitment of the anti-nuclear camp, for
instance, will be condemned as hypocrisy by the pro-nuclear lobby, because the
opponents of nuclear energy enjoy its benefits while at the same time arguing
against it.
For the anti-nuclear side, it would be feasible to abandon nuclear energy if
real measures were taken to save energy and if greater encouragement could
be given to research into alternative sources; if this is not done, the fault will
lie with the political authorities and electricity producers. Advocates of nuclear
energy concede that a reduction in energy consumption is desirable, but see no
escape from the fact that consumption has increased inexorably despite the fact
that energy saving has been under discussion for years. Energy saving therefore
becomes yet another Utopia. In this way, the anti-nuclear lobby will be exposed
and their contradictions revealed, thereby cementing the desired negative image.
There is a contradiction between words and actions. The formal structure of this
logic is as follows:
the opponents of nuclear energy (X) state: energy saving is vital (Y);
however, X does not do Y;
therefore they (X) have disproved their own case.
However, the anti-nuclear side has unlimited confidence in renewable energy,

which they express using a sort of hypothetical logic we have observed already:
If we were to invest more . . ., renewable energy would become profitable.
The pro-nuclear side draw voters attention to what they view as another
inconsistency of the anti-nuclear lobby. Because the latter opposed certain
strategies aimed at making greater use of hydroelectric power, the pro-nuclear
group ask the rhetorical question (cognitive response): so, what is the real
motivation of those who argue in favour of alternative energy while refusing
hydroelectric power? Implication: how can you trust anyone so illogical and who
is clearly afraid to state his true motives?
A larger conception of political communication and discourse

Finally, this brief analysis of the dynamics of the argumentation used in this
adversarial communication between protagonists and opponents of nuclear
energy allows us to highlight a number of points about political argumentation
when approached in its ordinary, everyday manifestations, and in action.

95
96
In a political debate of this sort, it is not considered sufficient to: (i) use the
arguments one feels are most credible; and (ii) refute the arguments of ones
opponents.
An important complementary activity is used while the discourse is being
constructed, in order to achieve through the discourse itself an effect in terms of
the images and social and political representations which are at stake in these discussions. Through numerous cognitive and discursive means, each protagonist
seeks to create in the mind of the public witnessing this combat a favourable
image of him- or herself and an unfavourable image of the opponent, aided and
abetted by a number of discursive techniques of legitimation and invalidation.
The extent to which the adversary is discredited is sometimes so great that it
represents a breach of the normal rules of communication: instead of seeking
to understand what the opponent is really trying to say, and put oneself in the
opponents place in order to do so, people attempt, using all available means, to
refute and manipulate the opposing discourse and to challenge the place of the
opponent, by displacing and embarrassing them.
By discrediting the ideas, discourse and image of the opposing party, it is
hoped to induce, simultaneously and by contrast, a positive image of oneself.
It is worth asking one question at the end of this short article: are these verbal
wars really compatible with the image of direct democracy?
This is one of the aspects that goes hand in hand with direct democracy and
which can perhaps be justified on the grounds that verbal sparring avoids armed
conflict and that the verbal knockout blow is a symbolic one and preferable to
actual death.
Moreover, this adversarial communication, consisting of contradictory political argumentation which punctuates the exercise of direct democracy, enables
citizens to obtain information and document themselves during the public debate,
even forcing them to develop their own arguments if they hope to contribute
meaningfully and effectively to the public, participative and deliberative forum
that precedes the vote.
These public discussions, even when they culminate in verbal excesses, help
to keep the population engaged. However, it could be argued that this system
has not prevented a high level of abstention. This is true, but this abstentionism
needs to be put into its proper context. Let us take the example of a city with an
electorate of 100,000, called upon to vote in a referendum on whether old public
baths have to be refurbished or demolished and rebuilt. Although the turnout
is a mere 30 percent, this nonetheless represents 30,000 people who have gone
to the trouble of taking an interest in a problem which, although important,
is hardly earth-shattering! When looked at in this way, the turnout actually
appears huge. Moreover, this problem will have given a large number of citizens
the opportunity to discuss planning issues affecting their city, ecology, and the
life of the historical districts, and, at the very least, to take a closer interest in
their environment.
In general, it appears that this article regarding the operation of political
argumentation in its most everyday manifestations can usefully complement
the more theoretical, abstract and structural approaches to argumentation.

The adversarial interaction between the supporters and opponents of nuclear

power, and the cognitive and argumentative effort deployed to curry favour
with the public as witness, show to what extent a purely theoretical analysis
of argumentation, as the relationship between a speaker and a purportedly
universal auditorium, can lack the vital dimensions of the concrete and everyday
operation of effective political argumentation.
The question of political argumentation also touches upon fundamental
social issues. It raises the question of the preferred social model, namely, the place
reserved for public deliberation and debate. The choice of an empirical and real
example of political argumentation in a political system such as a referendumbased direct democracy, may give an indication of the concrete implications of
the widespread contemporary demand for a more participative and deliberative
public forum.
The study of political argumentation also extends into an ethical and political
dimension: it contrasts public deliberations, the conflict of arguments, differing
views of the world, and reasoned choices with the force of evidence (the evidence
of religious, political, ideological, philosophical or other dogma).
Political argumentation presupposes a committed public which it is available
to serve. This explains why the emphasis is all on specific aspects of practical reason,
rather than theoretical reason, on the dialogic, interactive, representational and
polyphonic nature of ordinary political language and argumentation, and on
materialized and non-idealized common sense.
Paradoxically, an empirical study of political argumentation can also show
that argumentation is not everything and everything is not argumentation,
despite its vital and constructive role in the life and survival of a deliberative and
participative public forum. In addition to the conflict of arguments, images and
social and political representations, behind the arguments advanced, debated
and challenged, there is a backdrop of more fundamental visions of the world
which seem to play an essential role in determining voting decisions. Behind the
arguments of the pro- and anti-nuclear lobbies, we have identified a constant
reference to a more fundamental reality, a vision of the world (a somewhat materialistic, economic and pragmatic one among the pro-nuclear camp and more
idealistic, utopian and post-materialist among their opponents).
These views of the world, which are not always stated expressly by their proponents, appear to constitute a sort of final reference point, particularly when
an ordinary orator finds himself short of arguments during a verbal joust. But
contradictory argumentation in its true form, while being an expression of these
visions of the world, also helps in their construction and concrete expression,
and it is undoubtedly on these occasions that the participants themselves become
fully aware of them.
On a secondary level, putting the primacy of argumentation into its context
represents a profound criticism of those theoreticians of argumentation
who claim that the best argument must have the last word in a genuinely
deliberative public forum. Habermas (1981) represents the prototype of this
view, a forum to which they aspire, without ever realizing what constitutes an
effective, deliberative public forum.

97
98
Having tried to show the importance, implications and topicality of a more

systematic study of political argumentation, we feel that any concession of the
absolute primacy of argumentation would mean ignoring the current social and
political realities.
N OTE S
1. The first part of the research was published in HERMES,CNRS, 16/1995, pp. 5772,
Paris (with P. Amey and F. Gretillat).
2. For a more detailed analysis, with supporting quotations, see the complete study
carried out with a research team: U. Windisch, P. Amey and F. Gretillat (1993) Les
thmes et les formes de largumentation ordinaire chez les partisans et les adversaires
de lnergie nuclaire [Themes and forms of ordinary argumentation by the advocates
and opponents of nuclear energy]. Geneva: Department of Sociology, University of
Geneva.
REFERENCES
Gerstl, J. (1992) La communication politique. Paris: Colin.

Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Windisch, U. (1987) Le K.O. verbal, la communication conflictuelle. Lausanne: LAge
dHomme.
Windisch, U. (1990a) Le prt--penser, les formes de la communication et de largumentation
quotidiennes. Lausanne: LAge dHomme.
Windisch, U. (1990b). Speech and Reasoning in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Windisch, U. (1995) LArgumentation politique: un phnomne social total. Paris: Anne
sociologique.
Windisch, U. (2002) Suisse-immigrs. Quarante ans de dbats 19602001. Lausanne: LAge
dHomme.
Wolton, D. (1991) La communication politique: construction dun modle. Paris: Herms.
U L I W I N D I S C H is Professor of Sociology, Communication and Media at the University

of Geneva. He is developing research in the area of discourse analysis of Swiss politics,
migrations, xenophobia and racism. Other research includes intercultural relations,
communication, information and media in an interdisciplinary approach that mixes
sociology, anthropology, political science, discourse analysis, media and communication
studies. He is editor of a social sciences collection at LAge dHomme, in Lausanne and
Paris, Director of the Sector Communication and Media (Master and Ecole doctorale)
of the University of Geneva and leads a research and diagnostic group on media events
and crisis that is active in Switzerland and Europe. He is also the author of 15 books.
A D D R E S S : Dpartment de sociologie, Universit de Genve, 40 Bd du Pont-dArve,
CH-1211 Genve 4, Switzerland. [email: uli.windisch@socio.unige.ch]


Discourse & Society

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Discourse & Society

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Discourse & Society

Daily political communication and argumentation in direct democracy:

Downloaded from http://das.sagepub.com by camelia B on May 29, 2008

Windisch: Daily political communication and argumentation

Daily political communication and