Abstract
In todayâs ânetworkedâ public sphere, arguers are faced with countless controversies roaming out there. Knowing what is at stake at any point in time, and keeping under control the contribution oneâs arguments make to the different interrelated issues requires careful craft (e.g. Mohammed and Zarefsky, in Feteris, Garssen and Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2011). In this paper, I explore the difficulty of determining what is at stake at any moment of the argumentative situation and explore the challenge that that creates for examining the strategic shape of arguments. I argue that a meaningful examination of networked argumentative encounters requires that the boundaries of an encounter remain âfluid. In dealing with the fluid boundaries, I suggest to identify âargumentative associatesâ and âstanding standpointsâ.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Interestingly, Obamaâs choice ended up playing against him in relation to yet another issue, namely his competence in tackling terrorist (issue iv). His refusal to use the term has been taken as a sign that he is âsoft on terrorismâ, costing him a significant deal, domestically among those who would have liked to see tougher policies.
See the Atlantic (2017) for a âbrief history of Trump's Feud with Sadiq Khan.
This was another case of a taking the Mayorâs words out of context. In his statement, Khan had said that âits part and parcel of living in a great global city youâve got to be prepared for these things, youâve got to be vigilant, youâve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard jobâ. While the Mayorâs point was that being prepared for terrorism is necessary as âpart and parcelâ of living in a big city, the distortion alleges surrender and acceptance of terrorism in itself as âpart and parcelâ of living in a big city.
References
Aakhus, M. 2002. Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F. van Eemeren, 121â126. Newport News: Vale Press.
Aakhus, M., and M. LewiĆski. 2017. Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation 31(1): 179â207.
Atlantic. 2017. A brief history of of Trumpâs Feud With Sadiq Khan. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/khan-trump/529191/ .
Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
CNN. 2016. Obama: Why I wonât say âIslamic terrorismâ. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/29/president-obama-town-hall-radical-islam-sot.cnn.
Fairclough, I., and N. Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument: A theory of structure. Berlin: Routledge.
Goodnight, G.T. 2010. The metapolitics of the 2002 Iraq debate: Public policy and the network imaginary. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 13: 65â94.
Goodwin, J. 2002. Designing issues. In Dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation library, vol. 6, ed. F.H. Van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: MethuenâElsevier.
Jackson, S. 1992. âVirtual Standpointsâ and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argumentation illuminated 1, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, 260â269. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251â265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524.
Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1989. Building a model of conversational argument. In Rethinking communication, vol. 2, ed. B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.J. OâKeefe, and E.A. Wartella, 153â171. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kaiser, J., B. FĂ€hnrich, M. Rhomberg, and P. Filzmaier. 2017. What happened to the public sphere? The networked public sphere and public opinion formation. In Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense, ed. E. Carayannis, D. Campbell, and M. Efthymiopoulos. Cham: Springer.
Le Monde. 2018.â«âNous dĂ©fendons une libertĂ© dâimportuner, indispensable Ă la libertĂ© sexuelleâ»â. Retrieved from https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/01/09/nous-defendons-une-liberte-d-importuner-indispensable-a-la-liberte-sexuelle_5239134_3232.html.
LewiĆski, M. 2014. Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36(1): 193â218.
LewiĆski, M., and D. Mohammed. 2015. Tweeting the Arab spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. C. Palczewski, 291â297. New York: Routledge.
Mohammed, D. 2013. Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 47â74.
Mohammed, D. 2016a. Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation 30: 221â245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6.
Mohammed, D. (2016b). Not just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external purposes of public political arguments. In Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on argumentation, Lisbon, 2015, ed. D. Mohammed and M. LewiĆski, vol. I, pp. 499â514. London: College Publications.
Mohammed, D. 2016c. âIt is true that security and Schengen go hand in handâ. Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In Dialogues in argumentation, ed. R. von Borg, 232. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
Mohammed, D. 2018. Argumentation in Prime Ministerâs Question Time. Accusations of inconsistency in response to criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mohammed, D., and D. Zarefsky. 2011. Pragma-dialectical analysis of rhetorical texts: The case of Barack Obama in Cairo. In Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. E.T. Feteris, B. Garssen, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 89â102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pfister, D.S. 2014. Networked media, networked RhetoricsâAttention and deliberation in the early blogosphere. âUniversity Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
The Independent, 2017a. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby: London attack link to Islam as Christians killing Muslims is linked to Christianity. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/archbishop-canterbury-justin-welby-london-attack-islam-twisted-misused-muslim-faith-a7772916.html.
The Independent, 2017b. Donald Trump hits out at Sadiq Khan and âpolitical correctnessâ after London Bridge terror attack. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-london-bridge-terror-attack-sadiq-khan-muslim-political-correspondent-islam-isis-a7771966.html.
Thomas, S.N. 1973. Practical reasoning in natural language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.
Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Tindale, C.W. 2015. The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse, extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479â497.
van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press.
Welby, J. (2016). Archbishop Justin Welby on âthe common good and a shared vision for the next centuryâ. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5809/archbishop-justin-welby-on-the-common-good-and-a-shared-vision-for-the-next-century.
White House, 2014. President Obama: âWe will degrade and ultimately destroy ISILâ. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/09/10/president-obama-we-will-degrade-and-ultimately-destroy-isil.
White House, 2016. Remarks by the President after counter-ISIL meeting. Retrieved on 30 September 2017 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/14/remarks-president-after-counter-isil-meeting.
Zarefsky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22: 317â330.
Acknowledgements
I thank Mark Aakhus, the participants of the regular ArgLab research colloquium of the NOVA Institute of Philosophy, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper. This research has been supported by funds from the Institute of Philosophy at the FCSH NOVA, Universidade Nove de Lisboa as well as from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) grant PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohammed, D. Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?. Argumentation 33, 307â322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y