Abstract

With steadily accumulating knowledge and increasing differentiation of access to knowledge democracies face the troublesome problem of technocracy. A solution was sought in widened participation without giving up the claim that ‚rationality’ would have a better chance of being realized. New ‚constructivist’ theories renounce this claim on the basis of equally valid ‚rationalities’. This paper tries to refute this view by specifying the concept of rationality and by analysing discourse mechanisms furthering rationality. This is clone by reconstructing some lines of argumentation of a technology assessment of transgenic herbicide-resistant crops. Conclusions arise which are difficult to reject because there is a binding form of rationality at work. But rational argumentation does not guarantee consensus in politicized debates.