Trust as Glue in Nanotechnology Governance Network

Authors: Heidrun Åm

Publish Date: 2011/04/06

Volume: 5, Issue: 1, Pages: 115-128

PDF Link

Abstract

This paper reflects on the change of relations among participants in nanotechnology governance through their participation in governance processes such as stakeholder dialogues I show that policymaking in practice—that is the practice of coming and working together in such stakeholder dialogues—has the potential for twofold performative effects it can contribute to the development of trust and mutual responsibility on the part of the involved actors and it may bring about effects on the formation of boundaries of what is sayable and thinkable in nanotechnology governance Three vignettes about the work of the German NanoKommission indicate the development of new relations of trust recognition and mutual responsibility among actors It is concluded that governance in practice can assemble new collectives in which relations of trust are the glue holding the complex structure together While such a consensusbased progress may be favourable for smooth technology development it can be considered problematic if evaluated against the ideals of deliberative democracy which often form the premises on which public engagement is based Stakeholder forums were set in place with the intention of including various actors but this is Janusfaced if a dialogue becomes encapsulated in new governance networks new exclusions can arise For example a policing of which information is released to a wider audience can occurInterviewer ‘You mentioned that it took much time to agree on a definition of nanotechnology within the varied group of stakeholders The final position paper presents one definition Could you walk me through the process of reaching this agreement’Respondent ‘Well … we started with defining nanotechnology within the range of 1nm and 100nm but some environmental organisations had objections to drawing the line at 100nm because there could be risks above this range So we discussed it further in a long process and finally we reached an agreement’Rephrasing the question several times did not help and the answers to other questions were similarly vague and undetailed I introduce this interview quote here not for its content but to show that the elicited material was definitely far from being a rich narrative account of the practices of nanotechnology governance In the course of the interview as I wondered why things were now going wrong I considered that there could be several reasons why the interview was unproductive Did the interviewee just not understand what I meant when I described my interview style in the beginning or was the respondent simply not talkative Nevertheless the consistency with which tricky topics were circumvented throughout the interview gave me the impression that the respondent did not want to tell me what I needed to know Frustrated about the interview going badly and feeling that it was a waste of our time I began to conclude the interview after only about 40 minutes I did not mention anything about my evaluation of this interview to my respondent But—as Paul Watzlawick put it in his metacommunicative axiom of his communication theory you cannot not communicate Indeed I must have expressed my disappointment about the interview nonverballyRespondent ‘Thereby we the stakeholders are taken more seriously as partners on an equal footing That was not like this from the beginning By knowing each other better one trusts the other and then talks about things that must not be made public but this is very important background information … Yes I think it is important in such matters to trust each other and to be able to ask the questions one could not ask if the discussions were public’I nodded and accepted the apology as it were Only months later when I had the opportunity to participate in a workshop on nanotechnology and trust did I recall the anecdote which made me think further Which consequences for democratic governance do the relations have that are built among stakeholders when they gather on a regular basis to talk about nanotechnologies I argue that members of stakeholder forums are temporally united by relating different interests to the common project of ‘the responsible development of nanotechnology’ A ‘we’ in governing can arise among previously disparate subject positions which are transformed by new relations of trust und mutual responsibilitiesDevelopments in nanotechnology politics must be seen in the broad context of changes in policymaking away from government towards governance ‘governance’ being a term introduced to capture a variety of actors institutions and sites involved in doing politics in formulating policy problems and in finding solutions to key problems Between state institutions and social organisations among state institutions and in subpolitical movements and citizen groups a range of new political practices has developed that develops political agendas apart from the institutions of the classical modernist states 13i Such new political practices can take the form of citizen juries citizen movements collaborative dialogues stakeholder forums informal policy networks officially assembled governance networks etc New in these practices are not only the way of conducting policy new sites new actors but also the themes ibid p iiAt the same time a new ethos is guiding these efforts an ideal of participation inclusion and deliberation There are considerable differences in the conception aims and means of deliberative democracy that are beyond the scope of this article But a common denominator of deliberative ideals is that in a democratic polity political decisions shall be taken by free and equal citizens 24 Deliberative democracy implies that collective decisions shall be taken by all those affected by the decisions and decisionmaking itself shall be characterized by a reasoned exchange of arguments among the participants 6 8 In short deliberative or participatory governance settings shall be more inclusive less hierarchical and consensus based

Keywords: