The data synopsis shows that the PARADYS materials differ as to their
relation to a concrete permitting procedure (direct, close and indirect relation);
kind of discourse manifestation (spoken, hand-written, typed, printed, electronic data);
and as to the
status of data collection (natural, animated and elicited data).
Furthermore, the allocation of these materials among the PARADYS teams is different.
Together, different data characteristics and different allocation among the research teams bear some implications for the comparability of empirical analyses:
There are materials available in all teams: the local interviews with participants and the national law including the regulatory conditions. Both types of material are central for our interest in social positions and their dynamics in discourse, and both types of material therefore have to make a focus of analysis and exploitation in each team.
There are materials which could be collected in some teams opening the floor for comparisons between country-specific dimensions of social positioning: public announcement of intended GMO field trial, files, local public meetings (including the locally distributed materials), local mass media, national public policy accounts, national public debate, national public meetings and national mass media. Among these types of materials, the so-called local public meetings are of special interest, since these events represent the only materials which are orally produced and natural and in close relation to a concrete GMO field trial.
Finally, there are materials more or less exclusive for some teams: the written objections and replies (D, NL) and the court hearings (IRE).
worked out. They were described above as: normative expectations about legitimate issues, and topics in the respective field (issue dimension); expectations about actors and their roles in the field (cognitive and normative), the legitimate form of inter-action and possible obstacles to ideal interaction, the communicated image of self and of relevant others, the legitimate form and function of public (social dimension); legitimate participatory procedure and obstacles to it (temporal dimension). These structural dimensions allow us to identify differentiated sets of expectations and to describe their respective problem-focus and main system reference. Finally, the respective expectations about form and function of citizenship are described.
2. Analysis of country reports: we studied all country reports with respect to the structural dimensions. On the basis of this analysis it it possible to formulate types of position, which are defined by the structural dimensions and are based on the empirical findings.
3. Synopsis: the types are listed in a synopsis (cf. the table page 89.) The types of social position listed below describe characteristic sets of social structures, (i.e. of communicated – implicit or explicit – normative or cognitive) expectations), sequentially linking communicative events (i.e., utterances).
As we already mentioned before, the epistemological status of these types differs from the sequential re-construction of single social positionings. The types represent empirical generalisations derived from the analysis of the country reports. They are not hypothetical in the sense that they are a mere product of the analyst’s imagination. On the contrary, they are meant to be general formulations of single positions empirically present in the material. In this respect, they may be regarded as ideal types in the Weberian sense of the word. As every kind of generalisation, the types should fulfil two conditions: 1. they should be exhaustive;
every relevant aspect of the empirical material should be covered by the generalisations, and 2. they should be exclusive to each other by describing empirically different phenomena.
Although being named in a “personal” way, these types do not refer to empirical persons. As defined above, they are understood as social structures. Therefore, they are not linked to individuals and their mental systems. They only describe communicative properties. Persons would change between such positions and would, for instance, take more than one position during the course of a communication. The attribution of an empirical utterance/
communication to one of the types does not include a statement about intra-personal processes. This social (trans-individual) quality of the positions does not challenge their analytical exclusiveness. The positions are meant to be well defined and non-overlapping in an analytical sense. Columns enumerate different types of social positions. Lines contain the respective structural characteristics of these positions. It is the lines, where our findings regarding assigning, ascribing and evaluating activities are summarized and integrated as a representation of communicative activities within the data.
There is a certain variety of social positions reconstructed in the research of the country teams. The comparative view over all PARADYS results brings up seven distinct types of social position. These types represent the scope of possible positioning. Before looking at their respective representation in each country we now briefly describe the main findings compiled in the table “Types of social positions and their structures” (p. 89.) Each position is characterised by the structural dimensions of relevant actors, self image, relevant topics, image of others, valid forms of communication, problem focus, and main system reference.
From these structural dimensions further information about the implicit models of the
“public”, the “procedure”, and the “citizen” can be derived.
1. The first position is named “The administrator”. In its communication structure, this position centres on the case which involves the application and the normative/legal questions linked to it, on the potential risk of GMOs, and on legal rights and entitlements of the persons involved in the procedure. Relevant actors are the competent authority as decision maker, scientific experts assisting the decision maker in fact finding, and the public as concerned third party with deliberative role, especially citizens contributing to the decision constructively, for instance, as objectors. The image of Self is that of a neutral, impartial, unbiased decision-maker who is obeying the law and political will, well monitoring an authorized field trial, and who is of high regulatory compliance. In some cases we also find the administrator closer to local citizens, as some kind of contact person for them, but bound by legal restrictions. The position stands, as a report formulates, for the figure of a “responder and decision-maker”. Relevant topics in the communication structure of this position are the legal aspects of the trials – which also imply the question of technological risks –, the protection of health and environment, the control of the whole situation. The image of relevant others has two sides: the arguing side (science, but also arguments from citizens), and the political side (fundamentalist opposition, interests, also on the applicants’ side). The
public has a rather passive role in the view of this position. The objecting citizens have to accept the final decision, they have to engage for the sake of the common good. The valid form of communication is prescribed by law and procedure. Arguing about facts with an equal status of every argument is the legitimate form, which can be disturbed by interference with political interests and strategies. In those cases, where the administrator position is closer to the citizen positions, an open dialogue including discussions beyond the scope of the procedure is also part of the valid communication, which then has the aim of finding a state of affairs that is satisfying all sides, operating between government and the governed. The problem focus of this position is compliance with legal requirements, precisely decision-making in the GMO case according to law. The decision has to be based on acceptability of GMO in terms of risks. The main system reference is the legal system. At some instances the second frame of relevance to the administration, the political system reference, also plays a structural important role as a second orientation.
The only valid form of public consists of the production of arguments in order to prepare and to support decision making. If the public is involved at all, its functions are to increase the legitimacy of the decision and to scrutinise it. The procedure has the form of deliberation, which can be destroyed by any kind of fundamentalism. The form of citizenship can be described as a set of rights and duties. Its function is the legitimisation and control of central power.
2. The second position is called “The local ‘We’”. It is a type of position that strongly focuses on local problems (e.g. soil contamination), on the potential (local) need for GMOs, and on their potential risk as legitimate issues and topics. Three main actors (and respective roles) are identified in the field of conflict that spreads around the GMO case. A very unspecific actor, namely the local “we”, who is sometimes named as “the citizens”, then the experts (researchers, scientists), who should assist local community in assessing the situation and in deciding, and, finally, the local authority as link to the decision making body (ministry or national authority, which is not thematic as actor.) As far as the applicant is concerned, he is viewed as an intruder from outside. The local authorities can be estimated as part of ‘we’, but they will usually have a seat on the other side in the negotiations. The competent (national) authority would be a mediator between the applicant (outside) and the local ‘we’ (inside). The communicated image of self is that of the membership in a locally/ geographically/ regionally defined community, thereby constituting a specific ‘we’. The local community is something
of integrity and autonomy that should accordingly be allowed to decide autonomously about its own concerns (including the GMO field trial.) Typically the local “We” observes itself as being outside/ excluded of the decision-making, although having a right to be included (the right to have a say.) This image of self, which is somehow characterised as “inside”, remains very implicit and closely connected to the concept of “locality”. It is important to note that the position is neither necessarily nor in general connected to anti-science or anti-GMO attitude.
Relevant topics to this position are local concerns and interests and the fact that the GMOs come from outside. The image of relevant others is that of “outsiders” to the community, especially researchers and firms who conduct unclear experiments that threaten local safety and autonomy. The local authority is mainly seen as addressee for participation. The valid form of communication for this position consists of authentic communication under the condition of equality and mutual respect that gives the opportunity for clear and open relations between the actors and for direct negotiation between researchers and local community. In-transparency, caused by the others, especially experts and applicants, who do not openly declare their real aims, is an obstacle to valid communication. The central problem focus is constituted firstly by the lack of information deemed necessary to establish the form of communication mentioned before and, secondly, by the question of power and knowledge (with a trend to low local power and high local knowledge). The main system reference of the position is politics in its local, community aspect.
For this position the public is only local. Its function is the information of the local community and the defence of local interests. An illegitimate form is “publicity”, i.e. to find oneself and one’s region “in the headlines” of national press. The procedural expectations are rather weak. They are limited to the possibility to read “documents” and to raise objections, i.e. to express the interests of the local “we”. An unspecific, everyday concept of decision-making lies behind these expectations. No explicit concept of procedure is communicated.
The local community should decide. Therefore, the inactivity of the local actors is a serious problem for this position. The form of citizenship that is implicitly communicated is the membership in a local community. The function of citizenship is autonomous decision about local issues.
3. The third social position occurs as “The concerned or engaged or critical citizen”. It describes a type of position that is concerned about citizenship and critique of GMOs.
Scientific questions are relevant as a resource for political arguments only. Mainly four
relevant actors/roles are identified in the field, namely (1) citizens (critical, active, ready to resist), (2) “officials” or administrative actors as a part of the central power, (3) scientists (either critical as resource for critical discourse (counter-expertise) or as a part of central power), and (4) companies or private investors. Among these, the competent authority, as representing the central power is seen as the partner of interaction and simultaneously as opponent with whom the citizen wants to struggle and compete for the best solution. The communicated image of self is characterised as active, elite, critical, sometimes also as an excluded minority, whereas the relevant others are biased by power, and interests, they are anonymous and usually do not listen and communicate to the critical individual. Therefore, this position may be described as alert and involved, aware of one’s rights, wanting to participate as citizen in important decisions. The basic structure is a concern about the general theme of GMO. The position, against this background, has to be engaged, competent, critical, subtle, and ready to discuss (scientific) risk arguments. It has in one report be described as communicating the “independent representative of the voiceless“. The focus of the self image is more on challenging the authority than on co-operating with them, led by some kind of mistrust. In general one follows the rules of the procedure, takes serious public meetings, asks for procedural correctness, and tries to call the government to account. The position is presenting itself as non-expert and layperson, but asking rationally well-explained questions.
Relevant topics for this position are safety, health, and the overwhelming power of multinationals, but also risk and need for GMOs in general, as well as scrutiny of the competent authority. The lack of knowledge about the consequences, the lack of information about biotechnology, and an appropriate leading figure become also relevant on this background. The communicated image of others describes scientists as unfair and corrupt, multinationals as able and willing to do anything. Relevant others will probably neglect citizens’ interests. The communication structure depicts public authorities as unable to implement their own regulations and as taken over by a linear idea of progress. Industry in the form of GM corporations is foisting an imprecise technology too rapidly on the world in the interest of profit. In so doing, it turns people into experiments; Scientists can be arrogant in accusing others of scientific illiteracy and seek to shape the debate to maximize their own authority. The Public is described as very concerned about GM foods but as still finding it difficult to express its point of view in a cogent fashion. Valid communication for this position consists mainly of arguing about rights and of asking questions to government. The Government has the duty to answer. Sometimes also “propaganda” with respect to the general public is brought into the game by challenging administration and power representatives,
making them accountable in front of public and citizens. One report describes a “strongly polemical tone”, primarily in form of a critique of rationality for government and more moralized critique of corporate actor, combined with powerful self-positioning devices to anchor self in everyday life. The problem focus of the position can be named as the fight against authorities on the basis of concern about integrity of food. Economy and globalisation are viewed as dangers for democracy. They are blind forces that threaten democracy, which should rule the country instead of financial powers. Public participation and decision-making are therefore relevant, and with them a lack of information becomes problematic. The main system reference is politics in its critical and general aspects.
The legitimate form of public for this position is one of action, namely of the public action of the critical elite “waking people up” and challenging the government/competent authority.
The legitimate function of public is mass mobilisation and opposition to central power. Public discussion, objections, and different forms of (violent or non-violent) resistance are seen as the main aspects of legitimate participatory procedure. Inactivity of the mass and lack of interest are serious obstacles to such a proceeding. The typical form of citizenship for this position consists of active engagement and equality between government and citizens. Its function is to build a counter-part to the central power, which is able to call it to account.
4. The fourth position, “The organised protester”, is concentrating on political decision-making. Scientific questions are introduced as a strategic resource. A whole number of relevant actors are identified. They are all described as interested parties: protest organisations, citizens (active, interested), mass/public (neutral, disinterested), policy-makers, administrators, and experts (as strategic resource). Against this background, the competent authority and/or the administrator are seen as the most relevant interaction partners. In general, the NGOs are representing the citizens. The image of self is that of a professional strategic actor, of an experienced repeat player. The position speaks from the perspective of a proactive minority defending the public against economic powers, it has significant experience in campaigning. It is not so much affected by the concrete field trial but rather by the subject of GMO in general. With sufficient knowledge to interpret the scientific facts, it is competing with the administrators. Relevant topics are social justice and equity, the protection of environment, safety, and economy respectively globalisation. The responsibility for the decision and issues of control are tackled. Relevant others are the more or less uninformed mass, the decision-makers and authorities, who have only a formal interest in the problem,
and who are partly prejudiced against NGOs, and finally the applicant, who usually has hidden interests. The communicated image of others also contains arrogant scientists, a manipulative government, and a ruthless industry in pursuit of their interests. Locals do not worry about genetically modified plants; organized protesters are at the forefront of a war to protect the environment from the attacks of mindless industry and the lack of control and proper action from the ones in charge. Public authorities exclude NGOs by not listening to their point of view and by setting unbalanced agendas. In addition, their implementation capacity for enforcing environmental regulations is weak. Industry is ruthless in pursuit of their interests, has large budgets but does things wrong in their advertising campaigns. Valid forms of communication contain lobbying, campaigning, propaganda, putting pressure, media echo. It is relevant to put pressure on the decision makers and on applicants for pushing them to comply with the requirements. The legitimate form of interaction therefore is mainly strategic action. That means also to “collect citizens’ protest” and to mobilise protest. At the end a bargaining with decision-makers is the goal. Imbalance of power and knowledge and dominance of scientific communication are being viewed as serious problems for valid communication. The problem focus has to be described as that of a typical power game. It is the fight of the good ones against the bad ones, where the good ones are those who want to protect the environment and want sustainable development and respect for the developing countries, while the bad ones are only looking for their private profit and are ready to do anything for it. The task therefore consists of influencing political decision-making, on the opposition to GMOs. The main system reference is politics in its institutional/organisational, strategic aspects. In one reports this aspect has been called “Justice” with a capital “J” which can be conceived as social equity and respect for the environment, and it acknowledges rights that go beyond the legally recognized ones.
The public in all this is often a spectator, a passive mass that has to be stimulated and pushed to reflect about matters that are not so present in their everyday life and ultimately act to change things. It is therefore mainly seen as an audience that can be mobilised to support strategic actors. It has the function to support the political action of the organised activists. A legitimate participatory procedure consists of collecting signatures and other public activities, writing objections, but at the end (and inevitably) in participation of the protest organisations in decision-making – a rather corporatist view of the participation procedure. The inactivity of the mass is a main obstacle to come to that bargaining position. The form of citizenship is
rather indirect, namely a form of representation by the organised protest. And the function of citizenship is consequentially the support for critical activists.
5. The fifth position is that of “The scientist (scientific expert)”. It deals with questions of truth only. Relevant actors in the field are, according to the communications of this position, scientific experts as representatives of the public interest, who find solutions to problems, and the administration and politics to execute these solutions. Besides these scientists on national and international level, mainly biotechnology commissions and politicians are mentioned. The communicated image of self says that the professional knowledge of the position necessarily leads to legitimate decisions. The scientist position describes honest workers aiming at knowledge and understanding. It reports the experience of hostility from the public and of being abandoned by politicians. Scientists are, according to one report, “citizens first of all”, working for the well being of society. They give advice to the government on scientific and technical aspects of the application, representing science and technology. Relevant topics are a probabilistic approach to risk, the potential of biotechnologies, and the role of research in society. Questions of truth have to be dealt with real and adequate arguments. Technical risks of GMOs are in the centre of interest. The image of relevant others is respectively critical.
From this perspective, the general public, the mass, and the consumers are seen as rather uninformed and ignorant. The public are suspicious of food industry as a result of recent scandals, lack confidence on GM, substantially due to combined NGO/media mis-information but could be brought around with the right information and argument (deficit hypothesis).
Politics is blamed for not taking a stronger position against the view on GMOs provided by the media. The public has fears, its interest is manipulated. The organised protestors are not competent in BT, and have exaggerated fears, too. NGOs and the organic movement generally are subjected to trenchant criticism in that they show bad faith in hiding interests, hence making ‘real’ communication impossible. The administrator’s work is eye-wash, he/she appears to disregard the regulation, but on the other hand he follows the EU practice and safety considerations. The legislator sets strict and often exaggerated requirements, represents contradictory directions, makes ill-advised regulations and manipulates the public as well as the industrial actor does. The only valid form of communication is arguing about facts, with a constitutively equal status of every true argument. Interference with political interests and strategies is destroying ideal interaction. The Problem focus can be described as eliminating risk in order to apply a technology on the surface level. But the centre of the scientist social position is focussed on the issue of understanding nature and devising new technologies to be