Cluster 2: Tensions Involving Temporality

The second cluster considers how time and history create tensions in participatory processes. Gadamer’s (2005) concept of the historically affected consciousness draws attention to the tension between history and the present that is ever present in dialogue.

Past and Present. One duality associated with temporal tensions asks us to consider the relationship between the past and present. In his study of a long-term land use conflict, Norton (2009) observes that “the significance of stakeholder conflict lies precisely in the his­tory groups have with one another” (p. 528). The current conditions and power relation­ships between the stakeholders are constructed over long periods of time, which suggests that “the dynamics within one period” were best understood in reference to “the histori­cally unfolding trajectory of these contested terrains” (Norton, 2009, p. 544). This tem­poral tension is particularly important when examining public policy conflicts because of the relatively long period of time it takes to develop and implement public policy. Harter’s (2004) study of a farm collective notes how sociohistorical and contextual discourses of agrarianism and masculinity contribute to “the (re)production of contradictions, tensions, and paradoxes of democratic organizing” (p. 109). Both Norton and Harter direct our attention to the tension between past and present in public participation by emphasizing either the his­torical development of the relationships among stakeholders or the sociohistorical discourses that give rise to and reinforce the existence of other tensions.

Episodic and Evolving. Another duality regards the juxtaposition of episodic events in relation to unfolding conversation. For example, Hamilton’s (2007) description of public participation during reclamation of the Fernald nuclear cleanup site demonstrates the ability for groups to continue in dialogue despite episodic instances of open conflict. Similar to Lee (2007) and Heath (2007), Hamilton (2007) notes that dialogue was sustained by a network of interpersonal rela­tionships rather than formal mechanisms of inclusion because the participants developed the ability to sustain “an ongoing conversa­tion among stakeholders who understand and respect one another’s points of view” (p. 65). Her study demonstrates that dialogue in public participation recognizes how epi­sodic interactions can fit within a longer-term image of an unfolding conversation.

Mathematical and Social Representations of Time. A third duality considers how time becomes represented in participatory processes—as a literal, mathematical, and calendar-based measurement or a relative, social representation. Since much public par­ticipation about community conflict addresses environmental, technical, and health risks, we must consider when people represent the manifestation of the risks and how this affects the urgency and prioritization of decisions (Norton, 2009). For example, the potential hazard of nuclear technologies lasts for an extremely long time that is beyond our com­prehension and, therefore, is subject to inter­pretation and social construction beyond its quantifiable material reality (Taylor, 1997). Risks about climate change are subject to similar representations. People may acknowl­edge that climate change could occur, but the possibility is so distant that they do not per­ceive it as a high risk (Lazaro, Cabecinhas, & Carbalho, 2007; O’Connor, Bord, & Fisher, 1999). This incomprehensible time frame cre­ates a space in which people construct alter­native interpretations of the climate change threat that justify their choices to take few preventative actions (Lowe et al., 2006).