ABSTRACT
The fifth chapter complements the third chapter and discusses how activists deal with disagreements in meetings. It shows that disagreements about proposals evoke strategic reasoning systematically, but also that activists maintain their consensus orientation even if they disagree about proposals. Activists formulate disagreements hesitantly and change topic if a conflict is emerging, something that becomes visible if conflict sequences are defined as a series of disagreements. The chapter demonstrates that strategic reasoning is subordinate to the process of consensus building: Disagreements about proposals systematically evoke strategic reasoning because activists use strategic reasoning to explain why they disagree with a proposal, something that primarily serves the interest of consensus-oriented planning and only secondarily contributes to argumentatively sound proposals. Similarly, activists who remained uninvolved in a conflict can also use strategic reasoning in order to end emerging conflicts. In conclusion, I discuss why activists avoid conflicts and point to the risks of escalating conflicts but also to the pacifying effect of the anti-nuclear movement’s stable goals and the unclear path to reach them.
