Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective (Argumentation Library)

152 Pages·2008·0.9 MB·English

by  Agnes van Rees

DISSOCIATION IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCUSSIONS
Argumentation Library
VOLUME 13
Series Editors
Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam
Scott Jacobs, University of Arizona
Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen
John Woods, University of Lethbridge
DISSOCIATION
IN ARGUMENTATI V E
DISCUSSIONS
A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
By
M. A. VAN REES
Universiteit van Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
M.AgnesvanRees
Lombokweg3
8391KGNoordwolde
Netherlands
[email protected]
ISBN:978-1-4020-9149-0 e-ISBN:978-1-4020-9150-6
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2008934576
(cid:2)c SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted
inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recording
orotherwise,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthePublisher,withtheexception
ofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeingentered
andexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
springer.com
Preface
This book represents the conclusion of ten years of research into dis-
sociation. The results of this research have been published, bit by bit,
invariousmedia:journals,conferenceproceedings,anthologies.This
monograph brings together these scattered papers. For this book, the
papershavebeenrewritten,newmaterialhasbeenadded,andthevar-
iouspartshavebeengroupedintoacoherentwhole.
I want to thank my colleagues in the Department of Speech Com-
munication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric of the Universiteit
van Amsterdam most warmly for the critical and constructive com-
mentsthatIhavebeensofortunateastoreceiveduringalltheseyears.
Without the intellectual stimulus of the discussions with Frans van
Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser (who, to my intense regret, did not live to
see the appearance of this book), Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart
Garssen, Eveline Feteris, Jan-Albert van Laar, Jean Wagemans, and
the other participants in the Friday research symposia in our Depart-
ment, I would not have been able to deal with the complex problems
that the various aspects of dissociation all too often posed. My grat-
itude also extends to the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis,
particularlyforthetravelgrantsIwasawarded,whichmadeitpossible
formetoalsosubmittheresultsofmyresearchtothecriticalscrutiny
of the international forum of argumentation scholars. Finally, I want
to thank the two anonymous referees who read the manuscript of this
bookfortheirmanyusefulsuggestionsforimprovement.
March2008 Noordwolde-Zuid
v
Contents
Introduction ........................................... xi
PartI Dissociation
1 TheConceptofDissociation ......................... 3
2 TheUsesofDissociation............................. 17
2.1 Philosophy..................................... 17
2.2 TheLaw....................................... 20
2.3 Politics........................................ 24
2.4 Science........................................ 27
2.5 Conclusion .................................... 29
3 IndicatorsofDissociation ........................... 31
3.1 SpeechActs.................................... 32
3.1.1 Distinction .............................. 32
3.1.2 Definition ............................... 36
3.2 Value ......................................... 39
3.3 Contradiction .................................. 41
3.4 Conclusion .................................... 43
PartII DissociationasaDiscussionTechnique
4 TheModelofCriticalDiscussion ..................... 47
vii
viii Contents
5 TheConfrontation Stage ............................ 55
5.1 Bringing ForwardaStandpoint.................... 55
5.2 Bringing ForwardCriticism AgainstaStandpoint .... 58
5.3 MaintainingorWithdrawing aStandpoint........... 60
5.3.1 Maintaining ............................. 60
5.3.2 Withdrawing............................. 62
6 TheOpeningStage ................................. 67
6.1 ProposingStartingPoints ........................ 67
6.2 AttackingStartingPoints......................... 70
6.3 Reacting to Criticism Brought Forward Against
StartingPoints .................................. 73
7 TheArgumentationStage ........................... 77
7.1 FirstCriticalQuestion ........................... 78
7.2 SecondCriticalQuestion ......................... 80
7.3 ThirdCriticalQuestion .......................... 82
8 TheConcludingStage .............................. 87
PartIII TheStrengthsandWeaknessesofDissociation
9 TheDialectical SoundnessofDissociation ............. 93
9.1 OtherApproaches............................... 94
9.2 Pragma-Dialectics .............................. 97
9.2.1 ProceduralRequirements .................. 99
9.2.2 MaterialRequirements .................... 102
9.3 Conclusions.................................... 106
10 ThePersuasivenessofDissociation ................... 111
10.1 OccasionsfortheUseofDissociation .............. 112
10.2 ResponsestoDissociation ........................ 114
10.2.1 AcceptingtheDistinction .................. 116
10.2.2 AcceptingtheValueHierarchy.............. 117
10.2.3 AcceptingtheSolution .................... 118
10.3 GainingAudienceAcceptance .................... 120
Contents ix
11 AnExtendedExample .............................. 123
11.1 TheCase ...................................... 124
11.2 TheRoleofDissociationinClinton’sDefense ....... 129
11.2.1 TheOccasion ............................ 130
11.2.2 TheDissociation ......................... 130
11.2.3 DialecticalandRhetoricalEffects ........... 131
11.2.4 DialecticalSoundness ..................... 134
11.2.5 PersuasiveEffectiveness ................... 135
11.3 Conclusions.................................... 136
References............................................. 141
Index ................................................. 145
Introduction
In the Spring of 2005, in a number of Dutch newspapers an ad ap-
peared for a new gossip magazine with the following text: ‘Sorry,
Patty,Henny,Hannie’–andawholelistofothernamesofwell-known
Dutch media personalities followed – ‘If you’re not in, you’re out!
InMagazine. The weekly entertainment glossy about the real stars’.
(Metro 27-05-2005). For Patty Brard, Henny Huisman, Hannie, and
the others, the sting is in the tail: Apparently, there are ‘real stars’,
whosecomingsandgoingsarereportedoninInMagazine,andacate-
goryofpeoplewhomaybethoughttheywereastar,butwhoinactual
fact cannot pretend to anything more than a name that rings faintly
familiar.Andwhowouldwanttoreadaboutthelikesofthose?Forthe
readers of the ad the message is clear: If you want to keep informed
abouttherealstars,youmustbuyInMagazine.
The ad for InMagazine makes use of an argumentative technique
that the argumentation theorists Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in
theirinfluentialbookTheNewRhetoric.ATreatiseonArgumentation
(1969), termed dissociation. According to Perelman and Olbrechts-
Tyteca, through dissociation, a notion that originally was considered
by the audience as a conceptual unity is split up into two new no-
tions,eachofwhichcontainsonlypartoftheoriginalone,onenotion
containing the aspects of the original notion that belong to the realm
of the merely apparent, the other one containing the aspects of the
original notion that belong to the realm of the real. Dissociation en-
tails conceptual reorientation, ‘remodeling our conception of reality’
(1969:413).ThereadersoftheadforInMagazinemighthavethought
that there was a simple, unitary notion of stardom and that they knew
whowasworthytobearthatname,butafterreadingtheadtheyknew
better: apparently there are two types of stardom, the real stars, to
which category only those personalities belong whose life is reported
xi