'Fraunhofer-Institut fur Materialfluss und Logistik'
Abstract
Over the last few years, the organization of public debates in situations of socio-technical or socio-scientific controversy has increased considerably. This should lead to a certain form of social peace due to the fact that each of the stakeholders - including citizens associations - are able to express their ideas and make their voices heard. In such conditions, how can it be that these debates, instead of easing conflicts, are more likely to radicalize the positions of the various parties involved, and to give the groups opposing the projects the feeling of being exploited? Part of the answer lies in the numerous systems aiming at moderating discussions, which may have been set up by the debates organizers not so much in order to prevent participants from going off the rails, but rather to avoid the development of convincing arguments. Some fear of rhetoric would then be at work. The analysis of debates and consultations, institutionally organized as part of controversial coal-bed methane drilling projects in the Moselle area, allows to support this hypothesis and to offer an explanation
