EN PT

Dima Mohammed, 28 May 2018, 16h

May 28, 2018

ArgLab Research Colloquium

Av. de Berna 26, I&D Building, room 007

 

Fluid boundaries, standing standpoints and argumentative allies. Proposals for the examination of networked public arguments

Dima Mohammed, Arglab - IFILNOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

 

Political argumentation is a characteristically complex practice: it features open access to a heterogeneous audience and it lacks time limits and a clear terminus (Zarefsky 2008). This is a challenge not just for arguers who, as Zarefsky tells us, have no option but to manoeuvre strategically as they argue. The open-ended almost limitless character of a public political argument is a challenge also for argumentation scholars who strive to develop the theoretical tools that can provide meaningful examination of political argumentation. Important advances in the examination of political argumentation have been realised by means of integrating rhetorical insights (e.g. van Eemeren & Houtlosseer 1999, Tindale 2004, Zarefsky 2014), as well as institutional considerations (e.g. Goodnight 2010, van Eemeren 2010) and political considerations (Fairclough & Fairclough 2012). Yet, crucial aspects of the complexity remain challenging.

As more and more of today’s arguments go into the ‘networked’ public sphere (Benkler 2006, Kaiser et al. 2017, Pfitser 2014), the open-endedness turns ‘networked’ too. Many of today’s arguments involve multiple parties in multiple places (Lewiński 2014, Aakhus & Lewiński 2017), arguers who pursue multiple goals (Mohammed 2016a) and address multiple issues (Mohammed 2016b). At any point in time, countless controversies roam the networked public sphere. Arguments emerge to manage the disagreement (Jackson & Jacobs 1980, Jacobs & Jackson 1989) as part of a complex network where distinct lines of disagreement in relation to different issues crisscross and overlap (Aakhus 2002, Lewiński & Mohammed 2015). For arguers, navigating one’s way into this network requires careful craft in order to keep under control the contributions that one’s arguments make to the different interrelated issues present (Mohammed 2016a, 2016b, Mohammed & Zarefsky 2011). For analysts, the challenge is to determine the boundaries of the argumentative encounter in the open-ended disagreement network.

In this talk, I argue that a meaningful examination of networked argumentative encounters requires that the boundaries of an encounter remain ‘fluid’. On the one hand, it is recommended to extend the limits of the encounter to include all the parts of the disagreement network which are being addressed. This is necessary for capturing the strategic design of argumentative moves. On the other hand, it is important to keep the encounter as close as possible to the space and time in which it occurs. This is critical for preventing speculations and unfounded attributions of commitments. In dealing with the fluid boundaries, I suggest to identify “argumentative allies” and “standing standpoints”. In the absence of evidence to the opposite, an arguer can be attributed a standing standpoint (y) when she advances an argument (x) that has become publically associated with standpoint (y). The attribution is even more justified when an “argumentative ally”, that is someone who has publically expressed similar positions, has advanced the argument x therefore y. I discuss the proposals, their merits and the further challenges they pose.

 

References

Aakhus, M. (2002). Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.) Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 121–126). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.

Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2017). Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.  Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse, Extending the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1/4, 479–497.

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.

Goodnight, G. T. (2010). The metapolitics of the 2002 Iraq debate: Public policy and the network imaginary. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 13, 65-94.

Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(3): 251–265. doi: 10.1080/00335638009383524

Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1989). Building a model of conversational argument. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J.O’Keefe, and E. A.Wartella (eds.) Rethinking communication (Vol. 2), pp. 153–171. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kaiser J., Fähnrich B., Rhomberg M., Filzmaier P. (2017). What Happened to the Public Sphere? The Networked Public Sphere and Public Opinion Formation. In: Carayannis E., Campbell D., Efthymiopoulos M. (Eds.) Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. Springer, Cham.

Lewiński, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218.

Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2015). Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative Polylogues in Digital Media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing Argument: Selected Works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291-297). New York: Routledge.

Mohammed, D. (2016a). Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30:221–245. doi: 10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6

Mohammed, D. (2016b). ‘It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand’: Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In R. von Borg (Ed.), Dialogues in Argumentation (pp. 232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation. doi:10.22329/wsia.03.2016

Mohammed, D., & Zarefsky, D. (2011). Pragma-dialectical analysis of rhetorical texts: The case of Barack Obama in Cairo. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pfister, D. S. (2014). Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics - Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Zarefsky, D. (2008). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22, 317-330.

Zarefsky, D. (2014). Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Springer.

Back to previous page


Events

All Events

Gratuitous Violence & Free Will in a Nihilistic Age

International Conference on Gratuitous Violence & Free Will in a…

September 19, 2019

Workshop - Nihilism and Values

Encontros do grupo de estudo sobre Nietzsche

September 18, 2019

EPLab Masterclass Series

Jeff McMahan - "Future People, Climate Change, and War"

September 12, 2019

THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

International Conference THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

September 10, 2019

Seminário Nietzsche

Leituras Contemporâneas. Nietzsche na Espanha

September 09, 2019

7ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

André Silva Santos apresenta Moses und Aron (Straub-Huillet, 1975) e…

July 23, 2019

Kant Reading Group

António Marques, "Kant against the Animals"

July 19, 2019

1st International Conference on Cinema, Philosophy and Children’s World

Co-organized by Ifilnova | CineLab - Laboratory of Cinema &…

July 09, 2019

1st Film Program on Lives in Transition: Exodus | Migrations | Exile

Co-organized by CineLab - Laboratory of Cinema & Philosophy, EPLab…

July 08, 2019

The Art of Feeling: Emotions Across Disciplines and Genres

Art of Living International Workshop/1

July 01, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Olivier Chassaing, "The Expressive Function of Punishment"

June 26, 2019

EPLab Masterclass Series

Nuria Sánchez Madrid, "Linhas de fuga da comunidade estética e…

June 21, 2019

Kant Reading Group

Nuria Sánchez Madrid, "Oeuvre de l'Art et Oeuvre d'Art"

June 21, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Per Algander, "Needing and Necessity"

June 05, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Regina Queiroz, "European Liberalisms: An Essay in Comparative Political Thought"

May 23, 2019

Art of Living

Culturelab Workshop 3/2019

May 22, 2019

O que é o Arquivo? Laboratório 3: cidade / arquivo

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

May 15, 2019

Dina Mendonça, 15 May, 2019, 15.00h to 16.00h

Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Why Immersion is…

May 15, 2019

Figuras Conceptuais da Fragmentação e Reconfiguração | Bruno C. Duarte e Nuno Fonseca

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

May 14, 2019

Nietzsche&Nihilism Project Seminar

Carlotta Santini, "Nihilism and Mithology The Case of Nietzsche"

May 13, 2019

Jorge Durán Solórzano, 7 May 2019, 16h

ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Competing narratives for change"

May 07, 2019

Ruas de Sentido Único - Programa de Rádio

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

May 03, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Roberto Merrill, "Ethically justifiable? Free riding versus fair shares"

May 02, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Dina Mendonça, "Kant on the Moral Cultivation of Feelings"

April 17, 2019

Figuras Conceptuais da Fragmentação e Reconfiguração | Bartholomew Ryan e Gianfranco Ferraro

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

April 11, 2019

4ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

Sérgio Dias Branco apresenta “Os Lugares da Esperança”

April 10, 2019

EPLab Masterclass Series

Theory and Practice of global governance: topical issues

April 05, 2019

3ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

Diego Hoefel apresenta "Reinvenções Dramatúrgicas do Melodrama no Cinema Contemporâneo:…

April 02, 2019

Catástrofe e deterioração

Culturelab Workshop 2/2019

March 27, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Luís Miguel Simões, "The Double Mouvement in Polanyi and Hayek:…

March 20, 2019

Seminário Permanente de Pensamento Antigo

CultureLab | Ars Vivendi

March 15, 2019

Frank Zenker, 12 March 2019, 16h

ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Why replication is your problem, too"

March 12, 2019

Robert Clowes, Postponed To be Re-Arranged

Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Postponed

March 07, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Jorge Gonçalves, "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value"

March 06, 2019

Problematising reality - encounters between art, cinema and philosophy 6

with Jean-Gabriel Périot and Alain Brossat

February 28, 2019

Problematising reality - encounters between art, cinema and philosophy 5

with Albert Serra and Alexander Garcia Düttmann

February 21, 2019

Figuras Conceptuais da Fragmentação e Reconfiguração | 2. Arquivo e Atlas: João Oliveira Duarte e Nélio Conceição

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

February 20, 2019

A catarse em Nietzsche

Aula/Palestra do prof. Ernani Chaves (Univ. Federal do Pará)

February 14, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Giovanni Damele, "On the Rationality of Democratic Choice"

February 06, 2019

Erich H. Rast, 5 Feb 2019, 16h

ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Multidimensional ‘better than’"

February 05, 2019

Arte e Tradução

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

January 29, 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Erich Rast, "How to accept the transitivity of better than"

January 23, 2019

Figuras Conceptuais da Fragmentação e Reconfiguração | 1. Colecção e Memória: Maria João Gamito e Claudio Rozzoni

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

January 22, 2019

2nd ERB Project Lecture

Wagner Teles de Oliveira

January 14, 2019

Book Symposium

Nuno Venturinha's Description of Situations

December 10, 2018

Seminário “Figuras da Subjectividade na Filosofia e na Literatura” | 9ª Sessão: Ana Falcato

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

June 06, 2018

International Symposium Cinema and Philosophy: Critical May 68

CineLab | IFILNOVA - FCSH / PhD Research Project of…

May 29, 2018

Seminário Nietzsche | Anthony Jensen

CultureLab | Lisbon Nietzsche Group

May 23, 2018

Seminário “Figuras da Subjectividade na Filosofia e na Literatura” | 8ª Sessão: Antonio Moretti

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

May 16, 2018

EPLAB Masterclass Series

Santoni de Sio

May 04, 2018

Seminário “Figuras da Subjectividade na Filosofia e na Literatura” | 4ª Sessão: Ana Kiffer

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

January 31, 2018

Seminário livre: “Figuras da Subjectividade na Filosofia e na Literatura”

CultureLab | Questions of Subjectivity: Philosophy & Literature

October 18, 2017

Institutions

FCT
FCSH