Marres 2007 – The Issues Deserve More Credit¶
In brief
The article examines the ‘issue-oriented’ perspective on public involvement in politics developed in STS, and argues that STS has not fully explained why issue formation should be seen as a crucial part of democratic politics (p. 759) [U]. Marres turns to Dewey and Lippmann, who saw public involvement as occasioned by controversies that existing institutions cannot resolve (pp. 759, 767) [U]. She proposes distinguishing between ‘publicizing’ and ‘de-publicizing’ issue articulations (p. 772) [U]. She also argues that analysing people's ‘attachments’ can capture more than frame analysis (pp. 774–775) [U].
Research question and main claim¶
- Question: why should an object-oriented politics take the form of democratic politics? STS research gives no explicit answer (p. 760) [U].
- Main claim: Lippmann and Dewey provide argumentative resources for the STS proposal that public involvement is occasioned by issues and dedicated to addressing them (p. 770) [U].
- They shifted the purpose of public involvement ‘from will formation to issue formation’ (p. 769) [U].
- A socio-ontological approach focusing on attachments offers an alternative to discursivist analysis of ‘issue framing’ (p. 759) [U].
Theoretical perspective¶
- STS work on public involvement: Irwin, Wynne, Jasanoff (public engagement with science), and Latour, Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe (hybrid forums, matters of concern) (pp. 760–762) [U].
- Field studies by Barry (road protests) and Gomart and Hajer (Hoeksche Waard) (p. 764) [U].
- Pragmatism: Lippmann's Public Opinion and The Phantom Public, and Dewey's The Public and Its Problems (p. 766) [U].
- Framing theory (Goffman, Entman) as the approach she contrasts with (p. 772) [U].
- Gomart and Hennion's concept of ‘attachment’ (p. 774) [U].
- She distinguishes ‘objectivist’, ‘discursivist’ and ‘socio-ontological’ understandings of issues (p. 776, n. 2) [U].
Empirical material and context¶
- No empirical material of her own. Theoretical article drawing on existing STS case studies: Wynne's Cumbrian sheep farmers after Chernobyl, Michael and Brown on xenotransplantation, Barry on road protests (pp. 764, 773–774) [U].
Method¶
- Conceptual argument: critical review of STS approaches, a reading of the Lippmann–Dewey debate, and a proposal for how STS concepts can elaborate the pragmatist position (pp. 760–775) [T – characterisation].
Key concepts¶
| Concept | How the source defines or uses it | Page | U/T |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue formation / issue articulation | The articulation of matters of public concern; what democratic processes are about, in STS | 761–762 | U |
| issue vs. problem | ‘Issue’ is more appropriate than ‘problem’ because affairs must be actively articulated and are not necessarily solvable | 768 | U |
| public | (Dewey) All those affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that they must be cared for | 767–768 | U |
| publicizing / de-publicizing articulations | Articulations that open an affair up for outside involvement vs. those that prevent it | 772 | U |
| socio-ontological | Issues as entanglements of material and social associations, not only discourse | 762–763, 776 | U |
| attachment | (Gomart and Hennion) A relation characterised by both active commitment and dependency | 774 | U |
| frames | Ideas and values that select aspects of reality; external to issues and usually taken for granted | 772, 774 | U |
| hybrid forum | (Callon et al.) Heterogeneous actors collectively define the problems they are implicated in | 762 | U |
How privacy and private data are understood¶
Topic not addressed [T].
Arguments and findings¶
- STS approaches to issue formation are underdeveloped: they do not consistently keep the socio-ontological view, can be read in ‘issue-less’ terms, and are preoccupied with organised participation events (p. 763) [U].
- Latour and Callon outline procedural models of democracy themselves, instead of extending the laboratory studies' critique of method to democracy (pp. 763–764) [U].
- According to the standard view, the Lippmann–Dewey debate is expertocracy vs. participation; Marres stresses that both characterised democratic politics as a practice of issue formation (p. 766) [U].
- Dewey's definition of public affairs is too ‘objectivist’ from an STS perspective, because affairs must be articulated to count as such (pp. 768, 770) [U].
- To articulate a public affair is to show that existing institutions are not equipped to deal with it, and that outsiders are needed (p. 772) [U].
- Actors are not only jointly but antagonistically implicated in issues (p. 773) [U].
- Frame analysis cannot capture the difference between publicizing and de-publicizing articulations, because frames are external to issues (p. 774) [U].
- Attempts at public-ization may fail, so no public involvement is achieved (p. 776) [U].
Limitations the source itself mentions¶
- The account raises fundamental questions she cannot answer here, such as the status of the associations in issues and how institutions act upon issues (p. 773) [U].
- It is far from self-evident which attempts to open up issues count as ‘public involvement’ (p. 775) [U].
- Dewey's experimental approach to institutional design can seem noncommittal (p. 777, n. 7) [U].
What the source does not cover¶
- Government documents as objects of analysis [T].
- Privacy or data [T].
Possible relevance for the thesis¶
- The distinction between publicizing and de-publicizing issue articulations (p. 772) may be a tool for reading whether Norwegian documents open up or close down privacy as a public matter [T].
- Asdal 2015 argues that becoming an issue can mean closing down; Marres 2007 already distinguishes between articulations that open and that close (p. 772). The relationship between the two is worth clarifying [T].
- The critique of frame analysis (pp. 772, 774) may matter if Rebekka considers using framing as a method [T].
Connections to other sources¶
- Asdal 2015 – Asdal cites this article as part of the STS literature on issues and says her analysis points almost the opposite way [T – from the Asdal card].
- Marres 2005 – the 2005 chapter covers the same Lippmann–Dewey reading in a shorter form [T]. This article cites Marres 2005, but that is the PhD thesis No Issue, No Public (p. 779) [U].
- Latour & Woolgar 1986 – Marres refers to the laboratory studies of the 1980s and 1990s and their ‘object-turn’ (p. 763) [U]; Laboratory Life is not cited by name [T].
Key quotes¶
“It does not, however, fully answer the question of why issue formation should be appreciated as a crucial dimension of democratic politics.” (p. 759)
“They proposed a shift in the purpose of public involvement from will formation to issue formation.” (p. 769)
“As public issues depend on outside involvement for their settlement, the difference between ‘publicizing’ and ‘de-publicizing’ issue articulations is of central importance.” (p. 772)
“When accounting for public involvement in politics, we should focus not only on the frames that actors mobilize to enact their concern with issues, but also on their attachments to things and people.” (p. 775)
Open questions for Rebekka¶
- Do Norwegian privacy documents open privacy up for public involvement, or do they treat it as something existing institutions can handle?
- Is framing a method you are considering? If so, how do you relate to Marres' critique?
- Who, if anyone, appears as ‘affected’ or ‘attached’ in your documents?
- Do you see Asdal and Marres as in agreement or disagreement about what it means for something to become an issue?