Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Polarized conflicts about wind power projects are a current phenomenon within the energy transition. By creating inclusive arenas of respectful communication, public deliberation promises constructive benefits to address such conflicts. However, research has not sufficiently investigated the extent to which this ideal is applicable in practice. The aim of this thesis is therefore to investigate the potential of public deliberation to contribute to the constructive management of wind power conflicts, paying particular attention to the role of emotions. In pursuit of this aim, I conduct an interpretive case study of a professional mini-public implemented in a German wind power conflict. I apply a deliberative systems perspective and assess the deliberative capacity of the mini-public based on its process design and different stakeholders’ experiences. My analysis suggests that public deliberation processes can have constructive benefits for wind power conflicts. They can create inclusive spaces for listening, reflection, and respectful discussion. This can contribute to understanding between different perspectives and stimulate personal learning. However, I also found that it can be challenging to transfer these benefits to the larger public. According to my analysis, this can be due to weaknesses in how mini-public results are communicated, but also due to interlinkages with other components of the system, such as referendums. In this case, a referendum created time constraints for the implementation of the mini-public and contradictory expectations towards the format of its results. Moreover, I found that emotions can play ambivalent roles in public deliberation processes. My analysis revealed that this key theme was intertwined with components of the broader deliberative system and suggests that it can be difficult to recognize legitimate emotional concerns if they blend with disinformation and manipulation in a cultural context that highly values rationality. While my findings indicate that both rationality and emotions are important for constructive deliberation, they also point towards this being a societal challenge that purposefully designed public deliberation processes cannot address on their own.