Abstract
A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.
Highlights
A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities
Dissensus approaches to stakeholder engagement (e.g., Barthold & Bloom, 2020; Brand, Blok, & Verweij, 2020; Burchell & Cook 2013a; Couch & Bernacchio, 2020; Dawkins, 2015, 2019; Fougère & Solitander, 2020; Rhodes, Munro, Thanem, & Pullen, 2020; Sorsa & Fougère, 2020; Whelan, 2013; Winker, Etter, & Castelló, 2020) claim that agonism, rather than the rational consensus advocated by previous literature (e.g., Baur & Palazzo, 2011; Burchell & Cook 2013b; Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Roloff, 2008; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007), should be the aim of the engagements
Dissensus approaches argue that rational consensus is merely the temporary result of a provisional hegemony; it is a stabilization of power that always entails some form of exclusion (Brand et al, 2020; Dawkins, 2015; Mouffe, 2005) because every possible discourse is hegemonic in nature and implies an ineradicable violence (Mouffe, 2005)
Summary
A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. Conflict is accepted and agency is given to disempowered actors, who, through constructive engagements, can attempt to change hegemonic discourses Mechanisms such as compromise and arbitration (Brand et al, 2020; Dawkins, 2015) have been proposed as means to reach agonistic closure in stakeholder engagement because they give agency to the disempowered actor and explain the power dynamics whereby each stakeholder might maintain its original views and ideals. The way in which this agentic reorientation is achieved is, yet to be explored in agonistic studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call