EN PT

Dima Mohammed, 28 May 2018, 16h

28 de Maio de 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.

Voltar para a página anterior


Robert Clowes é keynote speaker na 4th Avant Conference

4th Avant Conference 2019

24 de Outubro de 2019

Kant Reading Group

Inês Salgueiro, "From Hume to Kant via Wittgenstein"

11 de Outubro de 2019

O corpo na arte e na filosofia tropicalistas: os triunfos e desafios do modernismo brasileiro até agora

CultureLab

08 de Outubro de 2019

Kant Reading Group

Sofia Miguens, "I, Me, Mine - Back to Kant, and…

27 de Setembro de 2019

Gratuitous Violence & Free Will in a Nihilistic Age

International Conference on Gratuitous Violence & Free Will in a…

19 de Setembro de 2019

EPLab Masterclass Series

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

12 de Setembro de 2019

THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Conferência Internacional THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

10 de Setembro de 2019

7ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

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

23 de Julho de 2019

Kant Reading Group

António Marques, "Kant against the Animals"

19 de Julho de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Olivier Chassaing, "The Expressive Function of Punishment"

26 de Junho de 2019

EPLab Masterclass Series

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

21 de Junho de 2019

Kant Reading Group

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

21 de Junho de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Per Algander, "Needing and Necessity"

05 de Junho de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

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

23 de Maio de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

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

02 de Maio de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

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

17 de Abril de 2019

4ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

Sérgio Dias Branco apresenta “Os Lugares da Esperança”

10 de Abril de 2019

3ª sessão do Seminário Permanente em Cinema e Filosofia

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

02 de Abril de 2019

Seminário Permanente de Pensamento Antigo

CultureLab | Art(s) of Living

15 de Março de 2019

Frank Zenker, 12 March 2019, 16h

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

12 de Março de 2019

Robert Clowes, Postponed To be Re-Arranged

Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Postponed

07 de Março de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

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

06 de Março de 2019

Problematising reality - encounters between art, cinema and philosophy 6

with Jean-Gabriel Périot and Alain Brossat

28 de Fevereiro de 2019

Problematising reality - encounters between art, cinema and philosophy 5

with Albert Serra and Alexander Garcia Düttmann

21 de Fevereiro de 2019

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

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

20 de Fevereiro de 2019

A catarse em Nietzsche

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

14 de Fevereiro de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

Giovanni Damele, "On the Rationality of Democratic Choice"

06 de Fevereiro de 2019

Erich H. Rast, 5 Feb 2019, 16h

ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Multidimensional ‘better than’"

05 de Fevereiro de 2019

Arte e Tradução

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

29 de Janeiro de 2019

Ethics and Political Theory Reading Group

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

23 de Janeiro de 2019

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

CultureLab | Arte, Crítica e Experiência Estética

22 de Janeiro de 2019

2nd ERB Project Lecture

Wagner Teles de Oliveira

14 de Janeiro de 2019

Book Symposium

Nuno Venturinha's Description of Situations

10 de Dezembro de 2018

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

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

06 de Junho de 2018

International Symposium Cinema and Philosophy: Critical May 68

CineLab | IFILNOVA - FCSH / PhD Research Project of…

29 de Maio de 2018

Seminário Nietzsche | Anthony Jensen

CultureLab | Lisbon Nietzsche Group

23 de Maio de 2018

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

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

16 de Maio de 2018

EPLAB Masterclass Series

Santoni de Sio

04 de Maio de 2018

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

CultureLab | Questões de Subjectividade: Filosofia e Literatura

31 de Janeiro de 2018

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

CultureLab | Questions of Subjectivity: Philosophy & Literature

18 de Outubro de 2017

Instituições

FCT
FCSH