Page 88 - 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. 88
What Do We Know about the World?
scribe such phenomena, denoting them with the term “subversion” plac-
es the emphasis on the destructive effects they have on the very idea and
practice of rational discussion and communication.
The possibility that one or more participants in rational commu-
nication may act in a subversive manner raises the question of what the
other participants can do to prevent the negative effects of this kind of
argumentative subversion. One possible answer would be to use what
may be described as “anti-subversive strategies”– i.e. the employment of
various devices to fight against the perceived disrespect of the canons of
rationality and misuse of argumentative techniques.
These devices are treated as “strategies” for two main reasons. First,
the situations in which they are practiced possess an explicit or implicit
agonistic flavour, because rational discussions are often perceived as dif-
ferent kinds of battles which can be won or lost depending on the ver-
bal and argumentative skilfulness of the parties. This sense of “strategy”
is clearly related to the confrontational aspect of argumentative activi-
ty. Second, the blocking of argumentative subversion imposes the need
to choose an optimal, context-bound plan of action in order to be ef-
fective. This need originates from the character of argumentation as a
goal-directed and rule-governed activity in which the desired end of jus-
tifying and refuting opinions must be reached by respecting the rules of
use of reason and speech. Consequently, anti-subversive strategies must
be adapted to the particular context, the specific profile of the opponent
and the concrete type of breach of rules and principles of rational com-
munication in the given situation.
Because of this need to adapt strategies to specific conditions, any
attempt to study strategies for tackling argumentative subversion should
include an attempt to capture the inherent diversity of their types and
manner of application. This paper proposes a tentative typology of an-
ti-subversive strategies intended to serve as an initial approximation to
systematization, both in a descriptive and normative sense, of the vast
field of their practical deployment.4
3. A Typology of Anti-Subversive Strategies
The proposed typology comprises the following four kinds: the “ap-
peal to norm” strategy; the “appeal to institutional authority” strat-
egy; the strategy of “ignoring the sophist”; and the “fighting fire with
4 Due to space limitations, a more detailed development of the concept of “subversion in argumenta-
tive discourse” and of the proposed typology of anti-subversive strategies cannot be presented in the
framework of this article.
scribe such phenomena, denoting them with the term “subversion” plac-
es the emphasis on the destructive effects they have on the very idea and
practice of rational discussion and communication.
The possibility that one or more participants in rational commu-
nication may act in a subversive manner raises the question of what the
other participants can do to prevent the negative effects of this kind of
argumentative subversion. One possible answer would be to use what
may be described as “anti-subversive strategies”– i.e. the employment of
various devices to fight against the perceived disrespect of the canons of
rationality and misuse of argumentative techniques.
These devices are treated as “strategies” for two main reasons. First,
the situations in which they are practiced possess an explicit or implicit
agonistic flavour, because rational discussions are often perceived as dif-
ferent kinds of battles which can be won or lost depending on the ver-
bal and argumentative skilfulness of the parties. This sense of “strategy”
is clearly related to the confrontational aspect of argumentative activi-
ty. Second, the blocking of argumentative subversion imposes the need
to choose an optimal, context-bound plan of action in order to be ef-
fective. This need originates from the character of argumentation as a
goal-directed and rule-governed activity in which the desired end of jus-
tifying and refuting opinions must be reached by respecting the rules of
use of reason and speech. Consequently, anti-subversive strategies must
be adapted to the particular context, the specific profile of the opponent
and the concrete type of breach of rules and principles of rational com-
munication in the given situation.
Because of this need to adapt strategies to specific conditions, any
attempt to study strategies for tackling argumentative subversion should
include an attempt to capture the inherent diversity of their types and
manner of application. This paper proposes a tentative typology of an-
ti-subversive strategies intended to serve as an initial approximation to
systematization, both in a descriptive and normative sense, of the vast
field of their practical deployment.4
3. A Typology of Anti-Subversive Strategies
The proposed typology comprises the following four kinds: the “ap-
peal to norm” strategy; the “appeal to institutional authority” strat-
egy; the strategy of “ignoring the sophist”; and the “fighting fire with
4 Due to space limitations, a more detailed development of the concept of “subversion in argumenta-
tive discourse” and of the proposed typology of anti-subversive strategies cannot be presented in the
framework of this article.
