Conflicting narratives and communicative dissonance : conversations of contested space in Malta

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to observe the role of symbolic narratives in locally contested territories. The concept of architecture existing as a symbolic entity, being shaped by cultural, social, and political forces, while simultaneously shaping them, is a phenomenon which has been observed and unpacked by several spatial and political theorists. Building on this foundation, the research uses a case study example of Manoel island to examine how space becomes a vessel for conflicting symbolic aspirations, how language and narrative are mobilised to articulate these ambitions, and the effect these narratives have on the process of spatial negotiation itself. The research employs methods of qualitative analysis to analyse data mainly collected through semi-structured interviews to observe these processes at the micro - scale. Analysis revealed that, while stakeholders may share some symbolic concerns towards Manoel Island, diverging spatial aspirations arise depending on individual core values. These aspirations often seem incompatible. Because of these conflicting ideas of the future, stakeholders craft narratives, assigning symbolic roles to themselves and other actors within the conversation, which aim to legitimise their own position and delegitimise counter arguments. Here, narrative becomes a strategy for influence - whichever story is the most influential has the power to define the built environment. However, stakeholders recognise the mobilisation of strategic narratives in one another, creating distrust, hampering the potential for open dialogue and collaborative negotiation. This mutual suspicion gives rise to communicative dissonance, making the process of reaching consensus on the future of contested spaces increasingly difficult. This research highlights an opportunity to shift focus away from public debates and toward earlier, more reflective stages of engagement, before narratives solidify into rigid positions and common ground is obscured. By creating space for complexity and self-awareness, there may be greater potential to uncover common ground and reframe disagreement not as opposition, but as difference worth understanding.