Transcript PPT - ArgLab

Dialectic and Rhetoric in Political
Argumentation
Between strategic maneuvering and
critical discussion
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is:
– the discourse of the public sphere
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is:
– the discourse of the public sphere
to which access is in principle unrestricted and
for which technical expertise is not the price of
admission;
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is:
– the discourse of the public sphere
to which access is in principle unrestricted and
for which technical expertise is not the price of
admission;
– an unregulated and often free-form discourse;
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is:
– the discourse of the public sphere
to which access is in principle unrestricted and
for which technical expertise is not the price of
admission;
– an unregulated and often free-form discourse;
– a discourse reflecting the particularities of a
specific political culture.
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is about:
– gaining and using power;
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is about:
– gaining and using power;
– collective decision-making for the public good;
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is about:
– gaining and using power;
– collective decision-making for the public good;
– mobilizing individuals in pursuit of common goals;
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is about:
– gaining and using power;
– collective decision-making for the public good;
– mobilizing individuals in pursuit of common goals;
– giving effective voice to shared hopes and fears.
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is not institutionalized
in a formal sense:
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is not institutionalized
in a formal sense:
– absence of time limits
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is not institutionalized
in a formal sense:
– absence of time limits
– lack of a clear terminus
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is not institutionalized
in a formal sense:
– absence of time limits
– lack of a clear terminus
– heterogeneous audiences
Political argumentation
• Political argumentation is not institutionalized
in a formal sense:
– absence of time limits
– lack of a clear terminus
– heterogeneous audiences
– open access
Pragma-dialectics
- “In pragma-dialectics dialectic is defined
pragmatically as a method for dealing
systematically with critical exchanges in verbal
communication and interaction ‘that amounts
to the pragmatic application of logic, a
collaborative method of putting logic into use
so as to move from conjecture and opinion to
more secure belief’” (van Eemeren et al.,
1996: 214).
15
The Ten Rules of
Pragma-Dialectics
1.
2.
3.
Parties must not prevent each other from advancing or casting doubt on standpoints
Whoever advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so
An attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has really been advanced by
the protagonist
4.
A standpoint may be defended only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint
5.
A person can be held to the premise he leaves implicit
6.
A standpoint must be regarded as conclusively defended if the defence takes place by
means of the common starting point
7. A standpoint must be regarded as conclusively defended if the defence takes place by
means of arguments in which a commonly accepted scheme of argumentation is correctly
applied
8.
The argument used in a discursive text must be valid or capable of being validated by the
explicitation of one or more unexpressed premises
9.
A failed defence must result in the protagonist withdrawing his standpoint and a successful
defence must result in the antagonist withdrawing his doubt about the standpoint
10. Formulation must be neither puzzlingly vague nor confusingly ambiguous and must be
interpreted as accurately as possible
[source: van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987: 284-291]
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
• “As far as it is pertinent to pragma-dialectics,
rhetoric is the theoretical study of the
potential effectiveness of argumentative
discourse in convincing or persuading an
audience in actual argumentative practice.”
(Van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2007)
17
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
• “...the gap between dialectic and rhetoric can be
bridged by introducing the theoretical concept of
‘strategic manoeuvring’ (van Eemeren & Houtlosser,
2002).
• Strategic manoeuvring refers to the efforts arguers
make in argumentative discourse to reconcile aiming
for rhetorical effectiveness with maintaining
dialectical standards of reasonableness”. (Van
Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2007)
18
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
- “Strategic maneuvering manifests itself in
argumentative discourse in the choices that
are made from the ‘topical potential’
available at a certain stage in the discourse, in
‘audience-directed framing’ of the
argumentative moves, and in the purposive
use of ‘presentational devices.’” (Van
Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2007)
19
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
- Topical potential: selection of what lines of
argument to use
20
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
- Topical potential: selection of what lines of
argument to use
- Audience demand: adaptation of one's
argument to the beliefs and commitments of
the audience
21
Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
- Topical potential: selection of what lines of
argument to use
- Audience demand: adaptation of one's
argument to the beliefs and commitments of
the audience
- Presentational choice: matters of style,
structure, clarity, literalness or figurativeness…
22
Ex. 1:
Topical potential
Ex. 2:
Audience adaptation
Ex. 3:
Effective presentation / 1
Ex. 3:
Effective presentation / 2
Dialectic / Rhetoric
Dialectic
Rethoric
Dialogical model
Controversial model
Dialectic
Rethoric
Critical discussion
Strategic discourse
Dialectic
Rethoric
Universal audience
Particular audience
Douglas Walton’s Typology
Type of dialogue
Initial situation
Participant’s goal
Goal of dialogue
PERSUASION
Conflict of opinions
Prove your thesis is
true
Resolve or clarify
issue
INQUIRY
Need to have proof
Find and verify
evidence
Prove / disprove
hypothesis
NEGOTIATION
Conflict of interests
Get what you most
want
Reasonable
settlement that both
can live with
INFORMATIONSEEKING
Need information
Acquire or give
information
Exchange
information
DELIBERATION
Dilemma or practical
choice
Co-ordinate goals
and actions
Decide best
available course of
action
ERISTIC
Personal conflict
Verbally hit out at
opponent
Reveal deeper basis
of conflict
[source: Walton, 2003]
Means of Strategic Maneuvering
• Changin the Subject (Zafelsky 2008)
• Modifying the Relevant Audience (Schattshneider 1960)
• Appealing to Liberal and Conservative Presumptions
(Goodnight 1980)
• Reframing the argument (Perelman & Olbrecths-Tyteca
1958, Zafelsky 2006)
• Using Condensation Symbols (Sapyr 1934)
• Employing the Locus of the Irreparable (Perelman &
Olbrecths-Tyteca 1958)
• Using Figures and tropes argumentatively (Perelman &
Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958)
Critical discussion /
Strategic maneuvering
Is it possible to evaluate the acceptability of
strategic maneuvering by reference to the
rules for a critical discussion?
Critical discussion /
Strategic maneuvering
“In a normative sense, political argumentation
shares some of the characteristics of a critical
discussion, but it is shaped largely by the
constraints of a sphere of argument that is open
to all without preconditions regarding training,
expertise, or prior commitments. These
circumstances require that the argument critic
give wide latitude to the participants and be
charitable in understanding what they are trying
to do”
[Zafelsky 2008]
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goodnight 1980: The Liberal and the Conservative Presumption, in Proceedings of the Summer
Conference on Argumentation, Annandale, VA, Speech Communication Association
Perelman & Olbrecths-Tyteca 1958: Traité de l'argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, Paris, Presses
Universitaires de France
Schattshneider 1960: The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America, New
York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1996: Fundamentals of argumentation theory, Mahawa, L. Erlbaum
van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002: Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation
analysis, Dordrecht, Kluwer
van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2007: Argumentative Indicators in Discourse, Springer
Walton 1996: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Mahwah, L. Erlbaum
Zafelsky 2006: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Zafelsky 2008: Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation, in «Argumentation», 22, pp. 317–
330