18
interconnections pose a threat to sovereignty due to increased reliance on
neighbouring countries. Geopolitical experts might counter this argument
by pointing out that greater interdependency can in fact foster regional
cooperation. Each of these actors would be articulating their particular
interests in relation to other competing or complementary perspectives,
picking platforms and orders of worth that favour their message or ones
that are crucial for securing particular desirable outcomes (von BendaBeckmann 1981; Boltanski and Thévenot 2006; Patriotta et al. 2011), be
it parliamentary hearings, newspaper columns, online blogs, public consultations on new sectoral policies, electoral rallies, thematic conferences,
annual expos or even urban festivals.
What makes these practices relevant for the examination of accountability in energy transition is that they lend themselves to empirical study
(Moezzi et al. 2017). They allow a contextualised appreciation of different
actors’ interests and how they articulate them in a disaggregated manner.
This extends to actors within organisations as well, as a given organisation
rarely consistently represents a single perspective on a complex issue such
as energy transition. If one understands energy sector governance as comprising an assemblage of actors (cf. Rose 1999)—governmental institutions, emerging authorities such as ad hoc commissions for specialised
decisions, private companies, citizen associations, administrative bodies—
then practices of discursive legitimation offer insight into the numerous
and shifting relations between this diverse mix of actors. Tweets by a key
decision-maker, for instance, have lately emerged as a new way to keep up
with the latest developments in a fast-changing sector, and offer new
opportunities for public responsiveness—key figures can note and respond
directly to comments by ordinary individuals—while also providing
insight into the views of individuals within formal organisations (Morgan
et al. 2018). Discursive legitimation is also susceptible to hegemonic tendencies—particular accounts can ‘go viral’ and spread rapidly, often exercising significant influence by shaping readers’ or listeners’ perceptions.
Meanwhile, more detailed and often better substantiated claims such as
those in academic articles can remain largely disregarded even by key
decision- makers who usually have busy schedules and little time to access
paywalled manuscripts that use heavy language.
Practices of discursive legitimation thus play a key role in energy transition: validating particular acts and shoring up the credibility of institutional authorities and their decisions against critique; issuing challenges to
specific decisions and even decision-making processes and suggesting
S. SAREEN
interconnections pose a threat to sovereignty due to increased reliance on
neighbouring countries. Geopolitical experts might counter this argument
by pointing out that greater interdependency can in fact foster regional
cooperation. Each of these actors would be articulating their particular
interests in relation to other competing or complementary perspectives,
picking platforms and orders of worth that favour their message or ones
that are crucial for securing particular desirable outcomes (von BendaBeckmann 1981; Boltanski and Thévenot 2006; Patriotta et al. 2011), be
it parliamentary hearings, newspaper columns, online blogs, public consultations on new sectoral policies, electoral rallies, thematic conferences,
annual expos or even urban festivals.
What makes these practices relevant for the examination of accountability in energy transition is that they lend themselves to empirical study
(Moezzi et al. 2017). They allow a contextualised appreciation of different
actors’ interests and how they articulate them in a disaggregated manner.
This extends to actors within organisations as well, as a given organisation
rarely consistently represents a single perspective on a complex issue such
as energy transition. If one understands energy sector governance as comprising an assemblage of actors (cf. Rose 1999)—governmental institutions, emerging authorities such as ad hoc commissions for specialised
decisions, private companies, citizen associations, administrative bodies—
then practices of discursive legitimation offer insight into the numerous
and shifting relations between this diverse mix of actors. Tweets by a key
decision-maker, for instance, have lately emerged as a new way to keep up
with the latest developments in a fast-changing sector, and offer new
opportunities for public responsiveness—key figures can note and respond
directly to comments by ordinary individuals—while also providing
insight into the views of individuals within formal organisations (Morgan
et al. 2018). Discursive legitimation is also susceptible to hegemonic tendencies—particular accounts can ‘go viral’ and spread rapidly, often exercising significant influence by shaping readers’ or listeners’ perceptions.
Meanwhile, more detailed and often better substantiated claims such as
those in academic articles can remain largely disregarded even by key
decision- makers who usually have busy schedules and little time to access
paywalled manuscripts that use heavy language.
Practices of discursive legitimation thus play a key role in energy transition: validating particular acts and shoring up the credibility of institutional authorities and their decisions against critique; issuing challenges to
specific decisions and even decision-making processes and suggesting
S. SAREEN