Cognitive polyphasia in the reception of legal innovations for biodiversity conservation

• Autor(a) principal: Mouro, C.
• Data de Publicação: 2012
• Outros Autores: Castro, P.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/id/ci-pub-11007; http://hdl.handle.net/10071/13251

Cognitive polyphasia has mainly been used to address encounters between innovative scientific knowledge and local, traditional knowledge. Yet, change and innovation occur in many spheres of life, not just in the scientific one. In this paper we examine the encounter between new laws – or legal innovations – and local knowledge, and discuss how the normative force of new laws shapes communication and cognitive polyphasia. We specifically focus on the Generalisation phase of legal innovation, when new laws are translated into concrete practices, the social debate is more intense, and cognitive polyphasia is more likely to occur. We present empirical data from focus groups and interviews to illustrate how this happens for the specific case of the reception of new biodiversity conservation laws affecting communities living in protected sites. We also examine the positions of professionals from local mediating systems, illustrating how they manage the dilemmas linked to the introduction of new laws. The results illustrate the contexts of use of non-polyphasic and polyphasic interventions; they also show how polyphasia is expressed by two divergent argumentative formats (thematisation and conventionalisation), whose conjugation is indispensable for trying to contest the law while still respecting the normative meta-system. The findings are discussed taking into account the macro-societal consequences of cognitive polyphasia, trying to show how, at the societal level, it may contribute to slowing down social change. We also discuss how this is related to the enablement of emancipated representations, those where uncertainty and ambivalence more clearly emerge and sustain the negotiation of meaning.