Constructions of Participatory Democracy Institutions and Same‐Sex Union Rights in Online Public Deliberation in Greece

Abstract

This article aims to explore the argumentative lines employed in an online public deliberation concerned with legislation on same‐sex civil union in Greece. Drawing on rhetorical and discursive developments in political social psychology and sexual citizenship debates, the article focuses on arguments regarding the relevance and the implications of public deliberation on the construction of LGBTQI+ claims and rights. The analytic corpus consisted of 1,000 comments, analyzed with the concepts and tools of Rhetorical and Critical Discursive Social Psychology. A recurring line of arguing against the legislation questioned the democratic quality of public deliberation, representing it as a means used to legitimize predetermined decisions. Moreover, overtly discriminatory arguments were predicated on the values of participatory democracy. Accounts in favor of the legislation, though, challenged public deliberation on the grounds that it allows room for the dispute of universal human rights. The potential contribution of these findings to the understanding of the dilemmas of participatory democracy, the reproduction of heteronormativity, and the assimilation of LGBTQI+ claims is discussed.

Conspiracy theories in online deliberation on gender identity legislation: Dilemmas of prejudice and political partisanship and implications for LGBTQI+ claims

“…To sum up, our analysis, in common with other research findings, suggests that conspiracy theories can play an important role in intergroup relations (Biddlestone et al, 2020; Chayinska & Minescu, 2018; Cichocka et al, 2016; Swami, 2012). It also shows, however, that the intergroup context should not be taken for granted (Reicher, 2004).…”

“…Commentators portrayed their opposition to the legislation as being based on a prototypical image of "the Greek people", while they constructed the bill as outside Greek morals and values and therefore as not serving the interests of the nation (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). Furthermore, constructing their critique of the government as outside politics, commentators positioned themselves as "ordinary" citizens whose participation in the public deliberation is beyond political partisanship (Andreouli & Figgou, 2019;Michos et al, 2020).…”

“…As Moscovici (1987) argued, conspiracy theories are social representations that play an important role in intergroup relations (see also Biddlestone et al, 2020; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). In this vein, extant research has examined how conspiracy theories may be mobilized to justify intergroup relations at an international level (Cichocka et al, 2016; Mashuri & Zaduqisti, 2014; Swami, 2012) or to account for in-group collective behaviour (Chayinska & Minescu, 2018; Kofta & Sedek, 2005). In this latter strand of research, conspiracy theories are not viewed as aspects of someone's mind or personality, but as collective set of ideas used to forge or undermine political projects.…”

“…Interestingly, and quite ironically, the means of online participation is used by speakers to question the democratic character of the procedure itself, which is juxtaposed with "real" public deliberations held in person. It is noteworthy that such a comparison between online deliberation and in-person referenda is a common trope used in different contexts to oppose legislation related to LGBTQI+ interests (Marchlewska et al, 2019;Michos et al, 2020). Referenda are depicted as empowering people by giving them their voice back.…”