1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the argumentative strategies deployed in the , published in 2015 by a group of leading environmental thinkers. We draw on pragma-dialectics and Perelman’s rhetoric to characterize manifesto as a genre of practical argumentation. Our goal is to explore the relation of manifesto as a discursive genre to the argumentative structures and techniques used in the . We therefore take into scrutiny the elements of practical argumentation employed in the manifesto and describe the polylogical strategies of dissociation in negotiating the ecological value of nature and the modernist value of progress.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
2019-02-14
2019-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark and Marcin Lewiński
    2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation, 31(1): 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2007On Rhetoric: A theory of Civic Discourse (2nd ed., transl. byGeorge A. Kennedy). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck, Ulrich
    1994 “The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization.” InReflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, ed. byU. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, 1–55. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckert, Cristina and Maria José Varandas
    2004Éticas e Políticas Ambientais. Lisboa: Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bitzer, Lloyd F.
    1968 “The rhetorical situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blühdorn, Ingolfur
    2001 “Reflexivity and self-referentiality: On the normative foundations of ecological communication.” InLanguage Meaning Social Construction: Interdisciplinary Studiesed. byGrant, C. and D. McLaughlin, 181–201. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004333963_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333963_012 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carson, Rachel
    1994Silent Spring. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications, Inc. (Original work published 1962).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crist, Eileen
    2015 “The Reaches of Freedom: A Response to An Ecomodernist Manifesto.” Environmental Humanities, 7(1): 245–254. 10.1215/22011919‑3616452
    https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616452 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dahl, Trine and Kjersti Fløttum
    2014 “A linguistic framework for studying voices and positions in the climate debate.” Text & Talk, 34(4): 401–420. 10.1515/text‑2014‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dryzek, John S.
    2013The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Erhard, Nancie
    2007Moral Habitat: Ethos and Agency for the Sake of Earth. NY: State University of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2010Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fløttum, Kjersti
    (ed.) 2017The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456935
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456935 [Google Scholar]
  15. Giddens, Anthony
    1994 “Living in a Post-traditional Society.” InReflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, ed. byU. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, 56–109. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, Jean
    2019 “Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1): 40–64. 10.1075/jaic.18008.goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo [Google Scholar]
  17. Gorke, Martin
    2003The Death of Our Planet’s Species: A Challenge to Ecology and Ethics, transl. byPatricia Nevers. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (transl. byT. Burger). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hajer, Maarten A.
    1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamilton, Clive
    2015 “The theodicy of the ‘Good Anthropocene’.” Environmental Humanities, 7(1): 233–238. 10.1215/22011919‑3616434
    https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616434 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanna, Julian
    2012 “Manifesto form: The medium and the message.” Cine Qua Non, Bilingual Arts Magazine, 5: 51–71. https://cinequanon.pt/2016/05/04/cine-qua-non-5/. Last accessed27 April 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harré, Rom, Jens Brockmeier and Peter Mühlhäusler
    1999Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrison, Sarah
    2013 “Decoding Manifestos and Other Political Texts: The Case of Extreme-Right Ideology.” InPolitical Science Research Methods in Action, ed. byBruter, M. and M. Lodge, 47–63. London: Research Methods Series, Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137318268_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318268_3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heise, Ursula K.
    2008Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335637.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335637.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hjartarson, Benedikt
    2007 “Myths of Rupture: The Manifesto and the Concept of Avant-Garde.” InModernism, ed. byEysteinsson, Astradur and Vivian Liska, vol.I: 173–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/chlel.xxi.15hja
    https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxi.15hja [Google Scholar]
  26. Jamison, Andrew
    2002 “Science Technology and the Quest for Sustainable Development.” InTechnology Studies and Sustainable Development, ed. byA. Jamison and H. Rohracher, 17–40. Munich: Profil Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Latour, Bruno
    2015 “Fifty Shades of Green”. Environmental Humanities, 7(1): 219–225. 10.1215/22011919‑3616416
    https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616416 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewiński, Marcin
    2014 “Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1): 193–218. 10.2478/slgr‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse & Communication, 10(6): 553–575. 10.1177/1750481316674773
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316674773 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 “Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy.” Informal Logic, 37(2): 85–113. 10.22329/il.v37i2.4775
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i2.4775 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2018 “Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action.” InArgumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, ed. byOswald, Steve, Thierry Herman and Jérôme Jacquin, 219–241. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation, 28(2): 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  33. Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed
    2019 “The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1): 65–90. 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  34. Lyon, Janet
    1999Manifestoes: Provocations of the Modern. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Laar, Jan Albert and Erik C. W. Krabbe
    2019 Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1): 91–111. 10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin, James
    2015 “The Rhetoric of the Manifesto.” InThe Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto, ed. byCarver, Terrell and James Farr, 50–66. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCO9781139583404.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139583404.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels
    1988Communist Manifesto. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1848).
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mellos, Koula
    1988Perspectives on Ecology. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑19598‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19598-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Meyer, John M.
    1997 “Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, and the boundaries of politics in American thought.” Polity30(2): 267–284. 10.2307/3235219
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3235219 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mol, Arthur P. J. and Gert Spaargaren
    2000 “Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review.” Environmental Politics9(1): 17–49. 10.1080/09644010008414511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010008414511 [Google Scholar]
  41. Musi, Elena and Mark Aakhus
    2019 “Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1): 112–135. 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus [Google Scholar]
  42. Nixon, Rob
    2011Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674061194
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061194 [Google Scholar]
  43. OECD
    OECD 2002Indicators to Measure Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic Growth, Executive Summary. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/52/1933638.pdf. Last accessed onApril 2018, 27.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Paliewicz, Nicholas S. and George F. McHendry Jr.
    2017 “When good arguments do not work: post-dialectics, argument assemblages, and the networks of climate skepticism.” Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(4): 287–309. 10.1080/00028533.2017.1375738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1375738 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pearce, Kimber Charles
    1999 “The radical feminist manifesto as generic appropriation: Gender, genre, and second wave resistance.” Southern Communication Journal64(4): 307–315. 10.1080/10417949909373145
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949909373145 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pearce, Warren, Brian Brown, Brigitte Nerlich and Nelya Koteyko
    2015 “Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus.” WIREs Climate Change6: 613–626. 10.1002/wcc.366
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366 [Google Scholar]
  47. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, transl. byJ. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (original work published 1958).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Puchner, Martin
    2006Poetry of the Revolution: Marx, Manifestos, and the Avant-Gardes. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Rees, M. Agnes
    2009Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9150‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Shellenberger, Michael and Ted Nordhaus
    2004The Death of Environmentalism, Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World. https://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf. Last access27 April 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schiappa, Edward
    2003Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. UNEP
    UNEP 2011Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Decoupling_Report_English.pdf. Last access27 April 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali and Paula Castro
    2016 “Dissociating between ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in Climate Change controversies.” InArgumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, ed. byDima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, vol.II, 985–997. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, Marcin Lewiński and Paula Castro
    2016 „Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations.” Science Communication, 38(6): 699–723. 10.1177/1075547016676602
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016676602 [Google Scholar]
  55. Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, Dima Mohammed, Marcin Lewiński and Paula Castro
    2015 “Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis.” Discourse Studies, 17(4): 467–484. 10.1177/1461445615578965
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615578965 [Google Scholar]
  56. Varandas, Maria José
    2004 “Introdução.” InÉticas e Políticas Ambientais, ed. byBeckert, Cristina and Maria José Varandas, Lisboa: Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. WCED
    WCED 1987Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Last accessed27 April 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Weeks, Kathi
    2013 “The Critical Manifesto: Marx and Engels, Haraway, and Utopian Politics.” Utopian Studies, 24(2): 216–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. White, Lynn
    1967 “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science New Series, 155(3767) (Mar.10): 1203–1207.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Yang, Tongjin
    2006Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics. UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yanoshevsky, Galia
    2009 “Three Decades of Writing on Manifesto: The Making of a Genre.” Poetics Today, 30(2): 267–286. 10.1215/03335372‑2008‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2008-010 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zarefsky, David
    2006 “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation20(4): 399–416. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error