Page 149 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 149
political discourse and argumentation profiles 149
and the status quo; yet Lincoln is cherished as a pragmatic and liberal
politician.
So, what we may take from Weaver is that the arguments agents
make tells us something important, perhaps revealing and surprising
about that agent. Below Weaver’s insight is extended by taking politi-
cal parties as subjects, not just individuals, and by expanding the num-
ber of indexes (beyond major premises) that can contribute to charac-
terizations of argument agents – to profiles. The focus is on the profiles
that can be made of agents engaged in political argumentation, but pro-
files could also be made of argumentation agents in other fields like sci-
ence, law,3 and religion.
Some people have identified a male way of conducting argumenta-
tion, and found it objectionable. A generalization about the way men ar-
gue is implicitly a fragment of an argumentation profile of men. That
there are such generalizations is an indication that there is a rough, or in-
tuitive, idea of argumentation profiles already at large. The present pro-
posal aims to give shape and character to such profiles.
A notable aspect of argumentation profiles is that they do not char-
acterize argument agents on the basis of isolated argument behaviour –
a particularly ingenious analogy, or an atrocious fallacy, for examples –
but on their argumentation behaviour over a period of time. Thus, the
import of profiles is that they will indicate how agents have been dis-
posed to engage in argumentation in the past, and how they may be in-
clined to argue in the future.
3. Concepts Put to Work
An argumentation profile of an argument agent should be based on
an analysis of the agent’s argumentation-behaviour over a period of time
and executed in terms of concepts unique to the study of argumenta-
tion. Thus, when making profiles of argumentation behaviour in politi-
cal contexts it is not the usual issue-oriented categories we need such as
views on the economy, education, energy, the environment, and health
care. The concepts needed for argumentation profiles will be quite dif-
ferent. They do not have to do with policies or platforms, or party phi-
losophies. Which concepts in particular will be useful for making pro-
files is something we will have to find out through experimentation, but
it is reasonable to begin by testing some of the concepts argumentation
workers already have to hand.
3 See, e.g., Cassel (2012).
and the status quo; yet Lincoln is cherished as a pragmatic and liberal
politician.
So, what we may take from Weaver is that the arguments agents
make tells us something important, perhaps revealing and surprising
about that agent. Below Weaver’s insight is extended by taking politi-
cal parties as subjects, not just individuals, and by expanding the num-
ber of indexes (beyond major premises) that can contribute to charac-
terizations of argument agents – to profiles. The focus is on the profiles
that can be made of agents engaged in political argumentation, but pro-
files could also be made of argumentation agents in other fields like sci-
ence, law,3 and religion.
Some people have identified a male way of conducting argumenta-
tion, and found it objectionable. A generalization about the way men ar-
gue is implicitly a fragment of an argumentation profile of men. That
there are such generalizations is an indication that there is a rough, or in-
tuitive, idea of argumentation profiles already at large. The present pro-
posal aims to give shape and character to such profiles.
A notable aspect of argumentation profiles is that they do not char-
acterize argument agents on the basis of isolated argument behaviour –
a particularly ingenious analogy, or an atrocious fallacy, for examples –
but on their argumentation behaviour over a period of time. Thus, the
import of profiles is that they will indicate how agents have been dis-
posed to engage in argumentation in the past, and how they may be in-
clined to argue in the future.
3. Concepts Put to Work
An argumentation profile of an argument agent should be based on
an analysis of the agent’s argumentation-behaviour over a period of time
and executed in terms of concepts unique to the study of argumenta-
tion. Thus, when making profiles of argumentation behaviour in politi-
cal contexts it is not the usual issue-oriented categories we need such as
views on the economy, education, energy, the environment, and health
care. The concepts needed for argumentation profiles will be quite dif-
ferent. They do not have to do with policies or platforms, or party phi-
losophies. Which concepts in particular will be useful for making pro-
files is something we will have to find out through experimentation, but
it is reasonable to begin by testing some of the concepts argumentation
workers already have to hand.
3 See, e.g., Cassel (2012).
