For Deliberative Disagreement: Its Venues, Varieties and Values (original) (raw)

Argumentation in Political Deliberation (ed.)

The goal of this volume is to further the examination of the role, shape, and quality of argumentation in political deliberation. The chapters collected in the volume employ the concepts and methods developed within argumentation theory to investigate the specifics of political discourse across various deliberative arenas: from debates in the European Parliament, consensus conferences and public hearings in France, discussions in Dutch online forums, to exchanges of comments in online versions of British newspapers. In this way, the studies reveal the inner workings of argumentative interactions that constitute deliberative discourse – and thus importantly contribute to the study of public deliberation. This should be of interest to the students of argumentation, deliberation, and political discourse. In addition, the volume problematizes and theorizes some vital issues related to the study of situated argumentation, thus advancing the study of argumentation in context.

The contestation of credibility and the deliberative model of democracy

Public Reason, 2019

Political discourse is often dominated by attacks on credibility at the expense of discussions about policy proposals. Such attacks can exacerbate political division and undermine attempts to discuss difficult policy questions in the public sphere. While this is true, it is argued in this article that it is a mistake to simply dismiss all such attacks as irrational and illegitimate deviations from the norms of deliberative argumentation. Resolving questions about whom to trust is vital to our lives as social knowers. Furthermore, the influence enjoyed by speakers (individuals and organizations) is not always warranted and deserves to be challenged. Even though it strains the norms of civility, equality, and inclusion promoted by the deliberative model of democracy, the public contestation of credibility can serve epistemically and socially valuable ends. Thus, the contestation of credibility is a profoundly ambivalent phenomenon. Nonetheless, it has a central role to play in the social rationality of public discourse and merits greater attention by democratic theorists.

Argumentation Democracy 101: Deliberative Norms Made Easy

2017

This chapter-an adaptation of the first chapter of my book in Danish De svarer ikke ("They are not answering," 2011)-sets forth in everyday terms a theory of democratic debate: what its constitutive conditions are, and what ideal requirements it ought to fulfill in order to serve its democratic function best. Along the way, some current theories of democracy and the roles of rhetoric and argumentation in it are invoked as either supports or targets.

Argument, deliberation, dialectic and the nature of the political. A CDA perspective

We are grateful to Alan Finlayson and Colin Hay for these challenging responses to our book 2 . In what follows, we hope to give a satisfactory answer to their main arguments. In different ways, both Hay and Finlayson argue that, in focusing on argumentation and deliberation, we misunderstand the nature of the political. Secondly, Finlayson thinks that there is a discontinuity between CDA, in its previous versions, and our present framework. Thirdly, Finlayson claims that CDA's focus on representations (on discourses) should not be displaced by a focus on action, that representations are fundamental in politics, that disagreement is fundamentally over premises, not over practical conclusions, and a rhetorical (not dialectical) perspective is best suited to analysing political discourse.

The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason

British Journal of Sociology, 2001

Power in communication takes two main forms. As 'external' power, it consists in the ability to acknowledge or disregard a speaker or a discourse. As 'internal' power, it is the ability of an argument to eliminate other arguments by demonstrating its superiority. A positive or negative value may be ascribed to these forms of power. Four ideal-typical positions are discussed -strategy, technocracy, constructionism, and deliberation.

Political Reasoning and the Typology of Arguments in the Context of Political Philosophy

Philosophy Study, 2015

The main purpose of this article is to present the initial phase of the project in the field of argumentation theory and political philosophy. Project concerns studies of different types of rationality in the context of the argumentation. Background consideration is the problem of incommensurability and incompatibility types of rationality in political and ideological disputes. The first step is the establishment of a category of argumentative potential as a criterion for the typology of argument, which will build a map of argumentation, which will provide a starting point for a discussion. Apart from demonstrating the disproportion of discourses, the conclusion of the argument is to prove the local character of rationality.

Values and Strategies of Argumentation in Everyday Life, Politics and Social Science

The paper discusses some difficulties in intervening in popular political debate. These have to do with strategies of argumentation, types of explanation of social phenomena, and values. It compares social scientific and popular political forms of reasoning, commenting on ‘the belief in a just world’, differences between social and individualistic explanations, and between explanation and justification. It assesses George Lakoff’s claim that political debates are won on the basis of appeals to voters’ values, not policies, and argues that values should be treated as within the scope of reason, and as related to understandings of human needs and well-being.

Epistemic Norms for Public Political Arguments

Argumentation, 2023

The aim of the article is to develop precise epistemic rules for good public political arguments, by which political measures in the broad sense are justified. By means of a theory of deliberative democracy, it is substantiated that the justification of a political measure consists in showing argumentatively that this measure most promotes the common good or is morally optimal. It is then discussed which argumentation-theoretical approaches are suitable for providing epistemically sound rules for arguments for such theses and for the associated premises, rules whose compliance implies the truth or acceptability of the thesis. Finally, on the basis of the most suitable approach, namely the epistemological one, such systems of rules for the required types of arguments are presented that fulfil the conditions mentioned.

Public Argument & Deliberation (G)

Public argument refers to one way that citizens interact to shape their collective future through deliberation. With a few salient exceptions, theories of public argument and deliberation maintain a national character; historically, they are developed within and for a particular cultural context with little attention to cross-cultural and global interactions. This course takes the increase in global argumentation, spurred by networked media technologies, globalization, and supra-national organizations, as an opportunity to theorize “cosmopolitan public argument” and the “global public sphere.” A number of questions constellate around these two provocative concepts: Are there norms of argumentation that are, or should be, universal and transcendent of culture? What criteria ought to be used in judging cross-cultural argumentation, and how should those criteria be decided upon? What kinds of scholarly interventions are needed to thicken norms of public argument suitable enough for more cosmopolitan times? How portable is the concept of the “public sphere” to a global plane? Without a central, global governing structure, can a “global public sphere” even exist? What agent or agents does a global public sphere target? Is there a single global public sphere, or is there still a multiplicity of public spheres loosely interconnected through new connections forged by global media cultures? To apprehend the contours of cosmopolitan public argument and the global public sphere requires careful study of national public spheres and contemporary argumentation theory. This course begins with a close reading of Jürgen Habermas’ The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Habermas’ prolific engagement with the idea of publicity continues to resonate with contemporary conversations about the nature of publics and their problems in a global era. Indeed, the core concept of the “public sphere” continues to animate communication scholarship, especially late 20th century argumentation theory, featured in the second third of the course. Our engagement with historical and contemporary scholarship on public argument and deliberation will prepare us to consider the possibilities and characteristics of cosmopolitan public argument and a global public sphere in the last part of the course.