Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

This paper examines public engagement formats in which participants mobilise science and expertise in conflicting ways. Drawing on agonistic theatre dialogues on climate controversies in the Netherlands, we show how encounters across epistemic divides clarify positions and humanise disagreement.

Paper long abstract

The inclusion of diverse stakeholders in public engagement with science is widely regarded as a democratic imperative in STS. Yet, empirical practice reveals a reluctance to include participants who reject dominant epistemic norms of science, e.g. climate sceptics or self-declared conspiracy theorists. This paper investigates the value of including such actors in public engagement formats in which science is contested. Hereto, we draw empirically on the Dutch Theatre Dialogues of Dissent project, comprising three ‘agonistic’ image theatre workshops and three public theatre dialogues, in which polarised participants engaged on climate controversies. Engaging in a dialogue between empirics and theory, we identify three benefits of such inclusion.

First, participants in a confrontation across epistemic divides are compelled to explicate what typically remains implicit in non-diverse engagements. When faced with fundamental disagreement on science, participants are forced to reflect on and articulate the role science and expertise play in their position. Second, such a sharpening of perspective also occurs vis-à-vis the (epistemic) positions of ‘opposing’ participants. While none of the participants argued that they revised their epistemic beliefs in response to arguments from the other side, they observed that they gained insight not only into the (epistemic) standpoints of the other participants, but also into the emotions, experiences and values underpinning these. Finally, in the encounter, they were reminded of the humanity of the other side. Thus, the agonistic engagements transform antagonistic exclusion into adversarial co-presence: disagreement persists, but the legitimacy of the other’s voice is affirmed without reducing difference to sameness.