Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions

A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
1. Auflage 2008
ISBN: 978-1-4020-9150-6
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 146 Seiten

Dissociation is a pervasive argumentative technique that can be found in argumentative discussions from all realms of public and private life. Up till now, a comprehensive and systematic argumentation theoretical study of dissociation does not exist. This book aims to fill this gap.

The treatment in this book, in several respects, is innovative. To begin with, so far, dissociation has been studied mainly from a monologual orientation. This book specifically focuses on dialogual aspects of the use of dissociation in argumentative discussions. In the second place, extant studies deal primarily with examples of dissociation from the philosophical and literary spheres or from the political arena. This book discusses a great variety of examples, many from every-day contexts, from such sources as newspapers, television shows, websites, Parliamentary Reports, and ordinary conversations. Last, but not least, the present book examines a broad range of features of dissociation. The first part of the book clarifies the notion of dissociation and provides insight into the way in which dissociation becomes manifest in argumentative discourse. The second part of the book, using the theoretical perspective of Pragma-Dialectics, answers the question how dissociation is used by the participants in argumentative discussions to realize their dialectical and rhetorical aims. The third and last part of the book discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the use of dissociation in argumentative discussions, both with regard to its dialectical soundness and to its persuasive effectiveness.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Preface;6
2;Contents;7
3;Introduction;10
4;Dissociation;15
4.1;The Concept of Dissociation;16
4.2;The Uses of Dissociation;29
4.2.1;2.1 Philosophy;29
4.2.2;2.2 The Law;32
4.2.3;2.3 Politics;36
4.2.4;2.4 Science;39
4.2.5;2.5 Conclusion;41
4.3;Indicators of Dissociation;43
4.3.1;3.1 Speech Acts;44
4.3.2;3.2 Value;51
4.3.3;3.3 Contradiction;53
4.3.4;3.4 Conclusion;55
5;Dissociation as a Discussion Technique;57
5.1;The Model of Critical Discussion;59
5.2;The Confrontation Stage;67
5.2.1;5.1 Bringing Forward a Standpoint;67
5.2.2;5.2 Bringing Forward Criticism Against a Standpoint;70
5.2.3;5.3 Maintaining or Withdrawing a Standpoint;72
5.3;The Opening Stage;78
5.3.1;6.1 Proposing Starting Points;78
5.3.2;6.2 Attacking Starting Points;81
5.3.3;6.3 Reacting to Criticism Brought Forward Against Starting Points;84
5.4;The Argumentation Stage;87
5.4.1;7.1 First Critical Question;88
5.4.2;7.2 Second Critical Question;90
5.4.3;7.3 Third Critical Question;92
5.5;The Concluding Stage;97
6;The Strengths and Weaknesses of Dissociation;101
6.1;The Dialectical Soundness of Dissociation;102
6.1.1;9.1 Other Approaches;103
6.1.2;9.2 Pragma-Dialectics;106
6.1.3;9.3 Conclusions;115
6.2;The Persuasiveness of Dissociation;119
6.2.1;10.1 Occasions for the Use of Dissociation;120
6.2.2;10.2 Responses to Dissociation;122
6.2.3;10.3 Gaining Audience Acceptance;128
6.3;An Extended Example;130
6.3.1;11.1 The Case;131
6.3.2;11.2 The Role of Dissociation in Clinton’s Defense;136
6.3.3;11.3 Conclusions;143
7;References;147
8;Index;151

Leseproben

In Pragma-Dialectics, argumentation is considered to be part of a critical discussion in which participants try to resolve a difference of opinion in a rational fashion. A difference of opinion rises when someone brings forward a standpoint and someone else raises doubt against that standpoint. The discussants can then decide to solve that difference of opinion in a rational fashion, that is, they can decide to jointly investigate whether the standpoint is tenable in the light of shared starting points. This investigation is carried out by way of a regulated procedure, in which one of the participants takes upon himself the part of protagonist of the standpoint and defends it against the critical scrutiny of the other participant, who takes the part of antagonist. This regulated procedure is called a critical discussion.

A critical discussion, analytically speaking, runs through a number of stages. Each of these stages can be characterized by the aims that are to be attained in the stage and the tasks that the participants perform in order to do so.

The purpose of the first stage, the confrontation stage, is to make the difference of opinion explicit. It must become clear which standpoints are disputed and what the exact shape of the dispute is. In the confrontation stage, one of the participants brings forward a standpoint and another one raises doubt against that standpoint. Subsequently, the former participantmaintains this standpoint. The difference of opinion then is a fact.

The difference of opinion can take various shapes. It can be single, multiple, mixed and non-mixed. In a single dispute, only one standpoint, with regard to a single proposition, is brought forward and called into doubt, for instance, ‘Dogs are man’s best friend’. In a multiple dispute, the standpoint pertains to a number of propositions, like ‘Dogs are man’s best friend, but they are not very intelligent, while cats are both more intelligent and more beautiful’. In a nonmixed dispute, doubt is raised against the standpoint, but no opposing standpoint is brought forward, the opponent merely questions whether the standpoint is tenable. In a mixed dispute, in addition to doubt, an opposing standpoint is brought forward, for instance, ‘Dogs are not man’s best friend’. Four types of dispute, then, may arise: single non-mixed, which is the elementary form of dispute, into which all the other forms can be analyzed, single mixed, multiple non-mixed, and multiple mixed.

The purpose of the second stage, the opening stage, is to distribute the roles of the participants in the discussion and to establish the starting points of the discussion. The participants decide who will take the role of protagonist of the standpoint that is at issue, in other words, who will take upon himself the obligation to defend that standpoint, and who will take the role of antagonist, in other words, who will systematically criticize that standpoint. In addition, the participants reach an agreement about the shared starting points that are the basis for investigating the tenability of the standpoint.