on popular opinion, the other on experts’ views or on a quote from liter- ature included in the cultural canon. The general discursive structure of parliamentary speeches is multilayered: in one and the same speech, MPs may use evidence from different categories. For instance, they may refer to truisms, moral codes, popular opinion and experts’ views. In the following example, an MP refers to an important historian and peace activist, to the declarations of an international organization and to the words of a religious and political leader:
‘‘The human mind is built to be a missile launch pad,’’ said E. P. Thompson, the most quoted historian of the 20th century and the leading peace activist in Europe in the 1980s. He also believed that if each person behaved as though a nuclear-weapons-free Europe were a reality, it would soon be reality. In UNESCO’s words ‘‘peace begins in the minds of people’’ and in Gandhi’s words, ‘‘there is no road to peace, peace is the road’’. Thus, the security and defense policy is deeply seated in culture, in people’s mental images and in historical memory. (Taipale, Ilkka,Parliamentary Documents, 2001, Minutes: 2650)
The openness of parliamentary discourse distinguishes it as a linguistic type of its own, which cannot be equated with more closed linguistic systems, such as the language games of various professions. MPs are unusually free to use language: the highest cognitive authority is the law, which MPs can change with their own decisions.
SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AS A
The deconstructing of interpretations or versions is associated with the reverse side of the dilemma described above: when undermining an inter- pretation, the opponent strives to show that the produced version is biased or tells only part of the truth. He or she may claim that the interpretation exposes or that some external factors reveal that the originator of the ver- sion or his or her reference group has a certain vested interest in the case or that the observations made are mistaken and the speaker has an axe to grind or that there is some other subjective factor at work (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984;Potter, 1996).
Particularly strong expectations of objectivity and neutrality are attached to scientific knowledge: researchers should seek the truth about the circum- stances or events that constitute their object of study. However, the objec- tivity and authority of social scientific information in parliamentary discussion can be undermined by using at least four types of arguments stressing (1) contradictions, (2) politicization of information, (3) uncertainty of information and (4) the inability of scientific knowledge to solve value conflicts.
Scientific knowledge claims are often contradictory. When compared to natural sciences, utilization of social sciences and jurisprudence in decision making is more difficult because these disciplines can only rarely produce undisputed results that the scientific community would agree on with at least some degree of unanimity. Agreement may be more widespread in natural sciences, although consensus is not always reached there either (cf.,Gilbert
& Mulkay, 1984;Potter, 1996). Nevertheless, irrespective of the discipline, reference to conflicts between different schools of thought or paradigms is often a useful strategy for undermining and deconstructing the cognitive authority of an information source.
Scientific information becomes politicized easily, especially in the fields of social sciences and jurisprudence. It is impossible to produce value-free social and legal research information; for this reason, some researchers even see the pursuit of science as a political activity. However, if science is understood as politics, it does not have any particular cognitive authority next to other social views and institutions. From a decision makers’ perspective, the authority of a certain information source can be undermined by stressing its links with certain interests. In such situations, the findings are seen as a political comment rather than an objective account of society: ‘‘such arguments are always used by feminist researchers’’ or ‘‘wasn’t the researcher’s name on the Conservatives’ list in the last election?’’
Social scientific information is uncertain because social development always involves unpredictable, uncontrollable and unique factors. Among
the social sciences, economics may be the closest to the natural sciences, but even economists find it hard to say anything certain about eco- nomic trends. The wider the social and political dimensions of the decision are, the less certain is any scientific information that is associated with the decision.
Although social scientific information cannot solve value conflicts, the management of these conflicts is a central factor determining political decision making. One of the main roles of parliament is to act as an institution where various group interests come together. In negotiations concerning political decision making, various opposing interests always need to be reconciled. The application of research findings to society and political decision-making calls for normative assessment where issues need to be explored from an angle wider than that used in social scientific research.
When the goal is to weaken the cognitive authority of a certain infor- mation source, MPs may utilize some or all of the above-mentioned features of social scientific information. Thus, questions about the uncertainty and contradictions inherent in information about society are always topical for MPs. For instance, Finnish MPs discussed the reliability of scientific infor- mation in 1931 during the debate on the government’s bill that would amend the Prohibition Act and permit the industrial manufacture and sale of beers with low alcohol content. According to the bill, persons who had registered their business appropriately would be entitled to carry out the industrial manufacture of beer with alcohol content not exceeding 2.25% by weight. The bill aroused much heated debate between the proponents and opponents of the Prohibition Act. The central bone of contention was whether or not beer with 2.25% alcohol is an intoxicant. During committee handling, MPs heard several professors’ and other researchers’ views on this matter, but the opinions of scientific experts were very different from one another. Therefore, some MPs finally decided to trust only their own experiences – or their own memories of drinking beer before prohibition. As MP Va¨ino¨ Kivisalo put it:
This experience of my own means more to me than counterarguments presented by any scientists. (Parliamentary Documents 1931, Minutes: 434)
Reference to one’s own experience and subjective bodily reactions is a strategy that is often used to undermine experts’ knowledge when discussing issues pertaining to health and illness (Tuominen, 2001;
McKenzie, 2003).
When the debate concerning the exemption of beer from the scope of prohibition was most heated, MP Bror Hannes Pa¨iva¨nsalo, a known Use of Social Scientific Information in Parliamentary Discussion 145
temperance man, asked for the floor and presented his own opinions on the role of scientific experts in decision making:
We respect science but we must remember that we should not alwaysiurare in verba magistri. If we always follow, and had followed, scientists, we would not even be able to travel on the train. For when the first train was being designed, the French Academy was asked to give its opinion on the matter; the scientists considered it impossible that the train would be able to withstand the air resistance involved. Scientists were wrong then, and they can still be wrong. We must, therefore, remember that, if one scientist says that beer is not an intoxicant, then another will come along claiming that it is an intoxicant. If one scientist is conducting studies there, another is conducting studies here; and tomorrow all findings may be overturned. (Parliamentary Documents 1931, Minutes: 459)
More than 70 years later, the contradictions and vagueness of scientific information concerning society are brought to a discussion on education policy as follows:
The primary goal of the Government’s Bill is to ensure the availability of a highly educated workforce when the population’s age structure changes. Justifications derived from employment and economic policy and the consequent logic, cannot, however, be applied to making education and university policy. A comprehensive education policy cannot be created by staring at statistics, especially in a situation where the statistics are inadequate. Discussion on the length of studies is difficult because we don’t have suffi- cient information on factors such as interrupted studies and changing of fields; owing to lack of this information, we cannot make conclusions about the real lengths of study times. The compilation of more accurate statistics is only starting. (Ojansuu, Kirsi, Parliamentary Documents 2005, Minutes)
The discussion concerns the government’s bill on amending the act on uni- versities. The bill contains a proposal to the effect that university students would no longer have the right to prolong their studies without limit; after a certain number of years, students would risk the sanction of being denied a degree. In her comment, the MP criticizes the government’s bill for‘‘staring at statistics’’ and emphasizes the comprehensive nature of education and university policy. The MP also stresses that the statistics utilized in the government’s bill are ‘‘inadequate’’: the current statistical methods do not reveal the real length of studies in different disciplines. In her speech, the MP tries to undermine the cognitive authority of the statistical data used in the government’s bill in the same way as MPs criticized the contradic- tions and vagueness of scientists’ opinions in the discussion held in 1931.
Notions about uncertainty, narrowness and the contradictory nature of information concerning society are cultural resources that have a long history in political debate.