When unequals are treated equally: the 2002 commission of inquiry into Orica's Geomelt proposal

This paper deals with the Commission of Inquiry (COI) established by the NSW Department of Planning to examine Orica's proposal to build a Geomelt plant at its Botany site to destroy its stockpile of Hexachlorobenzene. The Inquiry is analysed in light of the literature on democracy/democratisation. The paper argues that the standard operating procedures of the Inquiry ensured that all stakeholders were treated equally. However, this equality was found to be purely formal, and drawing on the critique of formal equality dating back to Aristotle, it is argued that treating unequals equally results in the circumvention of deliberative democratic ideals by perpetuating entrenched structural inequalities while nonetheless giving the superficial appearance of fair play.     

The rise of risk and the decline of politics

This paper argues that the rise of risk and formal risk assessment has contributed to the demise of representative democratic politics by displacing public discourses about values with technical justifications for decision making. Furthermore, risk plays a central role in the displacement of governmental responsibility to private sector and NGO actors at the same time as facilitating government control over citizens—the Janus faces¹ of governance and governmentality. Arguing that the turn to public participation cannot be the panacea for the present situation, the paper concludes by calling for revitalisation of representative institutions, the development of real-time technology assessment and development of popular connoisseurship of science and technology.     

The rise of risk and the decline of politics

This paper argues that the rise of risk and formal risk assessment has contributed to the demise of representative democratic politics by displacing public discourses about values with technical justifications for decision making. Furthermore, risk plays a central role in the displacement of governmental responsibility to private sector and NGO actors at the same time as facilitating government control over citizens—the Janus faces¹ of governance and governmentality. Arguing that the turn to public participation cannot be the panacea for the present situation, the paper concludes by calling for revitalisation of representative institutions, the development of real-time technology assessment and development of popular connoisseurship of science and technology.     

Environmental Communication: Why This Crisis Discipline Should Facilitate Environmental Democracy

The authors concur with Cox's claim that environmental communication (EC), like conservation biology, is a crisis discipline. Cox's proposed tenets for EC challenge the scientific norm of objectivity that has guided science for centuries, suggesting that today's environmental crisis requires us to travel a different path. The authors take Cox's essay as provocation to radically challenge magical notions of scientific objectivity. They briefly review Platonic contributions to the myth of scientific objectivity and then advocate a nondualistic perspective toward the relationship between humans and nature. They then suggest how this perspective both expands upon and diverges from Cox's vision of political and ethical engagement among EC scholars.     

Serving the Common Interest in U.S. Forest Policy: A Case Study of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act

In the United States, the common interest often is conceived as a by-product of the pluralist, interest-group-driven democratic process. Special interests dominate in many political arenas. Consequently, we have lost the language, vocabulary, and ability to talk about the common interest. The way to reverse this trend is to develop and practice with new tools that allow us to articulate what we mean by the common interest in specific contexts. In this article, we leveraged the literature on procedural, substantive, and pragmatic decision making to illustrate how they work together to demonstrate whether and how the common interest was served in three case studies of Healthy Forests Restoration Act implementation on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona. In two of the cases we found that the common interest was mostly served, while in the third case it was not. Our results raise questions about the ability of procedural criteria or substantive criteria alone to determine effectiveness in decision making. When evaluated together they provide a more complete understanding of how the common interest is or is not served.

An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment

This paper investigates the discursive construction of the substantive purposes of environmental assessment (EA). It addresses these purposes by exploring the complex and often multifaceted linkages between political factors and plural views of democracy, public participation, and the role of science that are embedded in environmental and sustainability discourses. The interaction between policy-making and public actors leads to the formulation of divergent and potentially competing rationales for public participation, and for social appraisal more generally. Participatory approaches have also given impetus to the development of several interpretations on the role of science in assessment procedures. Science is important in mediating public participation and the two are therefore reciprocally linked. This leads to discourses that become manifest in the construction of substantive purposes. Discourse analysis in EA is a relevant method for examining trends and patterns in sustainable development. It is argued that public participation is an important, if not decisive, variable in the articulation and civil legitimacy of certain purposes. A general proposition that results from this paper is that EA, although typically presented as an objective scientific tool, is an intrinsically normative process. Enhanced knowledge on the construction, and reconstruction over time, of substantive purposes is required if environmental and sustainability discourses are to be used and understood as meaningful analytical instruments to assess the socio-political implications of EA.     

The US’ Food and Drug Administration, Normativity of Risk Assessment, GMOs, and American Democracy

The process of risk assessment of biotechnologies, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has normative dimensions. However, the US’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems committed to the idea that such evaluations are objective. This essay makes the case that the agency’s regulatory approach should be changed such that the public is involved in deciding any ethical or social questions that might arise during risk assessment of GMOs. It is argued that, in the US, neither aggregative nor deliberative (representative) democracy ought to be used to make such determinations. Instead, participatory (deliberative) democracy should be the means by which members of the polity decide which normative concerns ought to underlie FDA’s assessment of GMOs. This paper uses a hypothetical case involving a new GM seed to make that argument.     

Nature's Nation: Improvisation,Democracy, and Ken Burns' National Parks

In his recurrent examination of what makes Americans “American,” documentary filmmaker Ken Burns has particularly focused on the twin themes of democracy and improvisation. The National Parks: America's Best Idea links the national park ideal with America's “democratic spirit.” Through an examination of its visual methods, I argue that the “Ken Burns gaze” is more consistent with the contemplative and magisterial visuality that shaped the origins of the national park movement—a visuality that sees nature as “out there” and a “finished product”—than it is with the improvisational spirit that both democracy and ecology demand in our time.