道义权力和制度背景

Pub Date : 2019-02-01 DOI:10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
Isabela Fairclough
{"title":"道义权力和制度背景","authors":"Isabela Fairclough","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18014.fai","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn this article I study the constraints and opportunities available to decision-makers in an institutional context\n(a county council), by analyzing the deliberative process that led to the rejection of an application for exploratory fracking.\nDrawing on a corpus of 130,000 words, I intend to develop the theorization of argumentation in institutional contexts initiated in\npragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010) by drawing on philosopher John Searle’s (2010) concept of “deontic power”. Illustrating both the restrictive and\nenabling force of the institutional context, my analysis shows that, while decisions which are in keeping with institutional rules\nare legitimate in the sense of being legal, the reasonableness of the institutional context itself cannot be taken for granted.\nWith various institutional rules in place seeming to obstruct rather than facilitate a rational decision outcome, and a local\ndecision, democratically arrived at, subsequently legally overturned by central government, it can be argued that bias against\nlocal democracy was in this case built into (legal) institutional design.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deontic power and institutional contexts\",\"authors\":\"Isabela Fairclough\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/jaic.18014.fai\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn this article I study the constraints and opportunities available to decision-makers in an institutional context\\n(a county council), by analyzing the deliberative process that led to the rejection of an application for exploratory fracking.\\nDrawing on a corpus of 130,000 words, I intend to develop the theorization of argumentation in institutional contexts initiated in\\npragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010) by drawing on philosopher John Searle’s (2010) concept of “deontic power”. Illustrating both the restrictive and\\nenabling force of the institutional context, my analysis shows that, while decisions which are in keeping with institutional rules\\nare legitimate in the sense of being legal, the reasonableness of the institutional context itself cannot be taken for granted.\\nWith various institutional rules in place seeming to obstruct rather than facilitate a rational decision outcome, and a local\\ndecision, democratically arrived at, subsequently legally overturned by central government, it can be argued that bias against\\nlocal democracy was in this case built into (legal) institutional design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

在本文中,我通过分析导致拒绝探索性水力压裂申请的审议过程,研究了制度背景下(县议会)决策者可获得的限制和机会。借助13万字的语料库,我打算通过借鉴哲学家约翰·塞尔(John Searle, 2010)的“道义权力”概念,在语用辩证法(van Eemeren, 2010)发起的制度背景下发展论证的理论化。我的分析表明,虽然符合制度规则的决定在法律意义上是合法的,但制度环境本身的合理性不能被认为是理所当然的。由于各种制度规则似乎阻碍了而不是促进了理性决策的结果,而且地方决策是民主达成的,随后被中央政府合法地推翻,因此可以认为,在这种情况下,对地方民主的偏见是(法律)制度设计的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Deontic power and institutional contexts
In this article I study the constraints and opportunities available to decision-makers in an institutional context (a county council), by analyzing the deliberative process that led to the rejection of an application for exploratory fracking. Drawing on a corpus of 130,000 words, I intend to develop the theorization of argumentation in institutional contexts initiated in pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010) by drawing on philosopher John Searle’s (2010) concept of “deontic power”. Illustrating both the restrictive and enabling force of the institutional context, my analysis shows that, while decisions which are in keeping with institutional rules are legitimate in the sense of being legal, the reasonableness of the institutional context itself cannot be taken for granted. With various institutional rules in place seeming to obstruct rather than facilitate a rational decision outcome, and a local decision, democratically arrived at, subsequently legally overturned by central government, it can be argued that bias against local democracy was in this case built into (legal) institutional design.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信