Technician and citizen, that is the question: A case of public participation in an urban setting

• Autor(a) principal: Castro, Paula
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Outros Autores: Batel, Susana
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v21i2.369
• topic: -

In this paper we analyze how the technical and lay systems engage in public debate, examining a case of public participation concerning the built heritage. This case concerns the transformation of a XVII Convent – Convento dos Inglesinhos – located in the Bairro Alto, into a closed residential condominium for the afluente. This project was accepted by the Town Hall technicians without public consultation, and gave rise to several protests and debate sessions. In this article, we first sketch the representational field of the controversy, through the analysis of the press, our notes from the public sessions organized by the dwellers and the interviews with the main actors. Afterwards we examine the intervoews with the Town Hall techniciansin a more detailed manner, show that they look at this controversy from two different identities: citizen and technician. When they step in the citizen’s shows, they argue in favour of citizenship rights and public participation as one of them, but when assuming their identities as technicians of the Gabinete do Bairro Alto, they oppose this particular public movement, particullarizing it as not participation and dismissing the dwellers goals. The notion of Cognitive polyphasia is used to examine how they manage this double positioning and how this is related to theirs different identities. We also discuss how the management of this dilema and the use of contradiction may prevent citizens from participating through a legal way in the decisions that affect their communities, and how this may promote anomic behaviours concerning the problems of the urban spaces. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v21i2.369