Socioplastics 11814 A Decision Can Preserve Disagreement
Public institutions can make decisions while disagreement remains active and visible. DissensusAcceptance describes a procedure that records unresolved claims, their authors and their possible consequences for later review. A municipality adapting a historic market might hear traders seeking affordable leases, conservation groups protecting the building, neighbours requesting access and officials managing financial viability. A report that records these distinct claims gives the decision a more precise public history. Boaventura de Sousa Santos examines epistemologies shaped by unequal power. Chantal Mouffe develops agonistic democracy around enduring political conflict, while Jacques Rancière analyses dissensus as a dispute over who can speak and what counts as common. Their approaches help distinguish a decision from consensus. A public authority may choose a course of action while explaining which claims informed it, which remain unsettled and how affected groups can return to the matter. A dissent protocol could preserve each objection in participants’ own terms, document the authority responsible for the decision and specify conditions for reopening it. Meeting records, alternative proposals and responses would accompany the final plan. A later review could check whether expected impacts occurred and whether dissenting claims identified new evidence. This makes disagreement part of institutional memory and provides a route from consultation to accountability. DissensusAcceptance offers a practical way to act under conditions of plural judgment. It helps institutions retain public trust by showing how a decision was reached and where further scrutiny remains possible. The process gives disagreement a continuing role in shaping collective life. A scheduled review can test the decision against those conditions and show how recorded objections continue to inform public action.
REFERENCES
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014) Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Mouffe, C. (2013) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
Rancière, J. (1999) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by J. Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
CITE AS
Lloveras, A. (2026) Socioplastics, LAPIEZA-LAB, Madrid.
https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/p/socioplastics-project-index.html