Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation

Pluralité des normes communicationnelles et langagières au sein d'un espace d'interaction entre acteurs sociaux

Abstract : "An ideological shift accompanies the current transformations of decision-making in contemporary democracies. It is through constant and systematic development of certain themes : discussion, debate, dialogue, consultation, participation, governance", says Loïc Blondiaux (Blondiaux, 2002, p. 81), describing what he calls "the emergence of a standard deliberative". But these themes, which have emerged as new standards of political discourse, have also appeared in the field of organizational communication. We have chosen to concern ourselves here with the communication and language standards which are involved in the dialogue forms between two categories of social actors : economic and associative. From the perspective of Habermas "discourse ethics" (Habermas, 1999), we will examine the patterns of language interaction between actors, and specifically their ability to dialogue. What is the basis of the exchange ? How to resolve the tensions between convergence and divergence ? What are the terms of dialogue between the protagonists ? Can we really speak of a dialogical praxis, i.e. the conditions for an authentic "discussion", assuming the construction of a common interest, are they satisfied, or are we in a simple "negociation", which merely obtains a compromise, a compatibility between particular and divergent interests, and can not defuse power relationships between actors, according to Habermas categories ? Also, can we identify a normative framework, some procedures which define the parameters of the exchanges ? Do these standards have an axiological dimension ? About this question of standards, we note that the contribution of the work on the analysis of models of participatory democracy is also very useful : we draw inspiration from research in sociology of innovation - like the work of Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes and Yannick Barthe - ; in sociology of controversies, as practiced by Francis Chateauraynaud ; in information and communication sciences, including Laurence Monnoyer-Smith ; and political science, with Loïc Blondiaux in particular, on the participatory processes, the mechanisms of negociation between social actors and the challenges they pose - holding uncertainties, domination games in case of inequality between participants - the conditions for the emergence and operation of models of participatory democracy.Our field of study is based on the analysis of the relationship between the company Aéroports de Paris (ADP) and the residents associations of Roissy-Charles-deGaulle airport - we can notice at the outset that this relationship carries a very strong constraint. While "dialogue" and "partnership" became leitmotiv in the communication media of ADP, the challenge is to avoid the block of the airport business. That is the reason why, under the pressure of resident populations disputing, which can lead to conflict and thus to the crisis, the airport operator has chosen the institutionalization of dialogue, according to a strategy, specifically, of avoidance of the conflict. This "crystallization of practices in devices" (Davallon, 2004, p. 51) is used to establish a framework to dialogue, in order to "smoothing" the disagreements.In terms of methodology, this study is based on the discourse analysis of a corpus composed of texts produced by the studied organizations, and interviews with the key actors of the exchanges. This entire corpus, written and oral, covers the period from 2000 to 2005. Our first part will be devoted to the issue of communicational standards within an official dialogue device between Aéroports de Paris and the resident populations : the Advisory Committees of the Environment, which include all actors involved in airport noise pollution. This brings us to the importance of establishing procedures, i.e. standards in deliberative authorities, as it has been highlighted by sociologists of innovation regarding the operation of models of participatory democracy, including of "hybrid forums", devices that enable actors responding to different interest logics to meet in the same advisory or deliberative structure. Indeed, the dialogue does not occur naturally between actors ; every debate is traversed by any asymmetries, therefore we need procedures for organizing the exchanges, fixing the features and the themes. The protagonists of the debate must define for themselves this framework of interaction, "normatively oriented space of dialogic procedures" (Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe, 2001, p. 218). However, without clearly defined standards, the Advisory Committees of Environment appear primarily as "a deliberative authority that contributes to an official presentation of the power relationships between actors" (Leroux, 2003, p. 140). Theses Committees appear to contribute to a smoothing of speech : it is observed that residents associations take generally less controversial speeches, more measured than on their websites. There is thus a gap between their positions in the institutional framework of the Committees - where they know that their image and legitimacy are at stake - and in their own discursive productions - where what they say responds more to the logics of ethos. So we see that the deliberative institutional form tends to promote social acceptance of decisions. By setting the associations in the position to participate in the development of public choices, it diverts them from their initial protest vocation.Our second part will then consider the significance of the language standards, as manifested through the study of the problem of noise pollution. Indeed, building a relationship of mutual trust involves the construction of a common language ; "the collective maieutics of a dialogue begins with a Confucian sharing of meaning of words and texts" (Zémor, 2003, p. 92). Now, if ADP speaks of "noise" - objective, measurable : there is a "global indicator of noise" -, the residents speak of "discomfort" - subjective, non measurable : there is no indicator of discomfort. The classification of the purpose of dialogue has therefore a particular importance and represents a real challenge for the actors. The reports of the Advisory Committees of Environment reflect this opposition between two types of languages, each carrying different representations : the "technical-scientific language" of the cluster's air actors, based on quantitative indicators such as annual noise indicator, coexists with the "damage" one, that is to say the language of the actually sustained discomfort, used by the representatives of local residents as well as the elected officials. Between the two, there is the "still unsatisfactory discourse of necessary normative objectification" (Leroux, 2003, p. 140).
Document type :
Conference papers
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [10 references]  Display  Hide  Download
Contributor : Compte Laboratoire Geriico <>
Submitted on : Monday, July 22, 2013 - 3:19:56 PM
Last modification on : Saturday, February 15, 2020 - 2:01:16 AM
Document(s) archivé(s) le : Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - 4:25:04 PM


Explicit agreement for this submission


  • HAL Id : hal-00825889, version 2


Amaia Errecart. Pluralité des normes communicationnelles et langagières au sein d'un espace d'interaction entre acteurs sociaux. Communiquer dans un monde de normes. L'information et la communication dans les enjeux contemporains de la " mondialisation "., Mar 2012, France. pp.81. ⟨hal-00825889v2⟩



Record views


Files downloads