Dialectic and Rhetoric in Political Argumentation Between strategic maneuvering and critical discussion

Dialectic and Rhetoric in Political Argumentation

Between strategic maneuvering and critical discussion

Political argumentation

• Political argumentation is:

– the discourse of the public sphere



– the discourse of the public sphereto which access is in principle unrestricted and for which technical expertise is not the price of admission;




– an unregulated and often free-form discourse;




– an unregulated and often free-form discourse;– a discourse reflecting the particularities of a

specific political culture.


• Political argumentation is about:

– gaining and using power;



– gaining and using power;– collective decision-making for the public good;



– gaining and using power;– collective decision-making for the public good;– mobilizing individuals in pursuit of common goals;



– 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 is not institutionalized in a formal sense:



– absence of time limits



– absence of time limits– lack of a clear terminus



– absence of time limits– lack of a clear terminus– heterogeneous audiences



– absence of time limits– lack of a clear terminus– heterogeneous audiences– open access

15

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).

The Ten Rules of Pragma-Dialectics

1. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing or casting doubt on standpoints2. Whoever advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so3. An attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has really been advanced by

the protagonist4. A standpoint may be defended only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint5. A person can be held to the premise he leaves implicit6. A standpoint must be regarded as conclusively defended if the defence takes place by

means of the common starting point7. 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]

17

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)

18


• “...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)

19


- “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)

20


- Topical potential: selection of what lines of argument to use

21



- Audience demand: adaptation of one's argument to the beliefs and commitments of the audience

22



- 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…

Ex. 1:Topical potential

Ex. 2: Audience adaptation

Ex. 3: Effective presentation / 1

Ex. 3: Effective presentation / 2

Dialectic / Rhetoric

Douglas Walton’s TypologyType 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

INFORMATION-SEEKING

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

Documents

Dialectic and Rhetoric in Political Argumentation Between strategic maneuvering and critical discussion