Dialectical Tensions in Public Participation and Community Dialogue
The notion that tensions are ever present in our communication is frequently noted in the public participation literature and may be viewed as posing interactional challenges for the designers and participants in dialogues (Heath, 2007; Leong, McComas, & Decker, 2007; Zoller, 2000).
While a variety of tensions constituting dialogue can be articulated, the source of these tensions is the democratic paradox (Mouffe, 2000). The democratic paradox conceptualizes tensions as part of a general struggle to “organize a common symbolic space.” Mouffe (2000) begins her description of the democratic paradox by distinguishing between antagonism and agonism. She considers antagonism proper to be that “which takes place between enemies, that is, persons who have no common symbolic space.” She considers agonism to be “a relation... between adversaries... persons who are friends because they share a common symbolic space but also enemies because they want to organize this common symbolic space in a different way” (p. 13).The practice of democracy is never realized perfectly, and in fact, Mouffe (2000) points out that if it ever was perfectly realized, then it would cease to be democratic. She writes,
What is specific and valuable about modern liberal democracy is that, when properly understood, it creates a space in which this confrontation is kept open, power relations are always being put into question and no victory can be final [italics added]. However, such an “agonistic” democracy requires accepting that conflict and division are inherent to politics and that there is no place where reconciliation could be definitively achieved as the full actualization of the unity of “the people.” To imagine that pluralist democracy could ever be perfectly instantiated is to transform it into a self-refuting ideal, s ince the condition of possibility of a pluralist democracy is at the same time the condition of impossibility of its perfect implementation [italics added]. Hence the importance of acknowledging its paradoxical nature. (p. 16)
The democratic paradox suggests that tensions will continually emerge in dialogue and intertwine in unique ways. Democracy is both the medium and the outcome of participation (Heath, 2007).
The democratic paradox is the primary tension from which other secondary tensions can be articulated. Drawing on the public participation and community dialogue literature, we identify dialectical tensions and dualities associated with dialogue. The following clusters are organized thematically; however, the categories of tensions frequently manifest together in lived participatory experiences.