1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 11, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Argumentation on some public policy issues is conjugated with disagreement and power differentials. Institutionally dominant arguers control the argumentation context through imposing authority rules which sometimes incentivize them to respond to opposing arguers in a fallacious way1 – with “the repeating tokens of the same counterarguments” and without considering the merits of opposing arguments. As produced in accordance with authority rules, such fallacies are embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and easily pass unnoticed. To detect them, I introduce Argument Continuity (AC) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. AC is a set of the same arguments and counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to disconfirm opposing arguments and dismiss them. ACs are distinguished from other fallacies by their continuous nature and recursive way of production. ACs have their own life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing the cost of adopting a certain argument over time. I test the life cycle of ACs in a single case study – in consultations held by the Crown with Indigenous peoples of Canada over a controversial resource development project. Although ACs are not specific to the Crown-Indigenous relationships, they reveal how dominant arguers treat disagreement from epistemically diverse arguers. Based on observed evidence, I develop three theoretical propositions of ACs, which can serve as guidelines for researching the disconfirming mode of reasoning in other contexts of communication permeated by beliefs clash and power asymmetries.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
2022-10-06
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, M.
    2013 Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 101–126. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak [Google Scholar]
  2. Aakhus, M., and Lewinski, M.
    2016 Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy. Argumentation, 31, 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Abbott, A.
    1983 Sequences of social events: Concepts and methods for the analysis of order in social processes. Historical Methods, 16, 129–147. 10.1080/01615440.1983.10594107
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.1983.10594107 [Google Scholar]
  4. Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., Mackean, G.
    2007 Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine, 64 (10), 2115–2128. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, S., and Chapin, III
    2018 Going beyond “it depends:” the role of context in shaping participation in natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 20. 10.5751/ES‑09868‑230120
     https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09868-230120 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blair, A., and Johnson, R. H.
    1987 Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41–56. 10.1007/BF00127118
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127118 [Google Scholar]
  7. Braman, E.
    2009 Law, politics, and perception: how policy preferences influence legal reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., and Chen, S.
    1996 Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. InP. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp.553–578). The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, S., and Chaiken, S.
    1999 The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. InS. Chaiken and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp.73–96). The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Coates, K., and Favel, B.
    (2016) Understanding FPIC: from assertion and assumption on “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” to a new model for Indigenous engagement on resource development. Aboriginal Canada and the Natural Resource Economy Series, 9, April. Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Collier, D.
    2011 Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823–830. 10.1017/S1049096511001429
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429 [Google Scholar]
  12. Craik, Neil
    2019 Environmental assessment: a comparative legal analysis. InE. Lees and J. Vinuales (Eds.) Oxford handbook for comparative environmental law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Devine, P., & Ostrom, T.
    1985 Cognitive mediation of inconsistency discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 5–21. 10.1037/0022‑3514.49.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ditto, P., & Lopez, D.
    (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568–84. 10.1037/0022‑3514.63.4.568
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dryzek, J.
    1997 The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, K., & Smith, E.
    1996 A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24. 10.1037/0022‑3514.71.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, J. S. B. T., and Over, D. E.
    1996 Rationality and reasoning. Psychology/Erlbaum (Uk) Taylor & Fr.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairclough, N.
    (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fearon, J.
    1996 Causes and Counterfactuals in Social Science: Exploring an Analogy between Cellular Automata and Historical Processes. InP. Tetlock & A. Belkin (Eds.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics, (pp.39–67). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fishkin, J.
    1991 Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Freund, T., Kruglanski, A. W., and Shpitzajzen, A.
    1985 The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 479–487. 10.1177/0146167285114013
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285114013 [Google Scholar]
  22. Govier, T.
    1992 What is a Good Argument?Metaphilosophy, 23(4), 393–409. 10.1111/j.1467‑9973.1992.tb00551.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1992.tb00551.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Green, D., and Shapiro, I.
    1994 Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D.
    2003 Deliberative democracy beyond process. InJ. Fishkin and P. Laslett (Eds.). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Blackwell: Australia. 10.1002/9780470690734.ch2
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690734.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hahn, U.
    2011 The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument, and Explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2), 172–182. 10.1177/1745691611400240
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400240 [Google Scholar]
  26. Haidt, J.
    2001 The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgement. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. 10.1037/0033‑295X.108.4.814
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hall, P. A.
    1989 Introduction. InP. A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton. Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691221380‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691221380-003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamlin, J. K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K.
    2013 Not like me = bad: infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 24(4), 589–594. 10.1177/0956797612457785
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457785 [Google Scholar]
  29. He, Baogang and Warren, Mark E.
    2011 Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2). 10.1017/S1537592711000892
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711000892 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jervis, R.
    1976 Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kanra, B.
    2012 Binary deliberation: the role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1). 10.16997/jdd.123
     https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.123 [Google Scholar]
  32. Klaczynsk, P.
    1997 Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33 (2), 273–283. 10.1037/0012‑1649.33.2.273
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.273 [Google Scholar]
  33. Krabbe, Erik C. W., and van Laar, Jan Albert
    2011 The Ways of Criticism. Argumentation, 25, 199–227. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9209‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9209-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kunda, Z.
    1990 The case for motivated political reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. 10.1037/0033‑2909.108.3.480
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 [Google Scholar]
  35. Landemore, H., and Mercier, H.
    2012 ‘Talking It Out with Others vs. Deliberation Within and the Law of Group Polarization: Some Implications of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning for Deliberative Democracy’, Analise Social, 47(205), 910–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Levi, M.
    1981 The Predatory Theory of Rule. Politics & Society, 10 (4), 431–465. 10.1177/003232928101000403
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003232928101000403 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindblom, C. E.
    (January01 1959 The science of “Muddling Through”. 10.2307/973677
     https://doi.org/10.2307/973677 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lodge, M., & Charles, T.
    2000 Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. InA. Lupia, M. McCubbins, and S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. London: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805813.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805813.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R.
    1979 Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. 10.1037/0022‑3514.37.11.2098
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mahoney, J.
    2000 Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. 10.1023/A:1007113830879
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879 [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, E., & Bradshaw, B.
    2018 Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the Yukon: Established Practice or Untraveled Path?The Northern Review, 47, 113–134. 10.22584/nr47.2018.006
     https://doi.org/10.22584/nr47.2018.006 [Google Scholar]
  42. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., and Parsons, S.
    2007 The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22 (1), 95–132. 10.1002/int.20191
     https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191 [Google Scholar]
  43. McGuire, W. J.
    1964 Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed.L. Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press), 192–229. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60052‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
    2011 Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mercier, H., and Sperber, D.
    2017 The enigma of reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674977860
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860 [Google Scholar]
  46. Moshman, D.
    2021 Reasoning, Argumentation, and Deliberative Democracy. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Nickerson, R.
    1998 Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. 10.1037/1089‑2680.2.2.175
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 [Google Scholar]
  48. North, D.
    1990 Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808678
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ostrom, E.
    1986 An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25. 10.1007/BF00239556
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00239556 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pierson, P.
    1993 When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628. 10.2307/2950710
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2950710 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2000 Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. 10.2307/2586011
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pimenova, O.
    (2021) The Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: Path Dependency in the Crown’s Reasoning. American Review of Canadian Studies, 51 (4), 649–65. 10.1080/02722011.2021.2007339
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2021.2007339 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pirsoul, N.
    2019 The deliberative deficit of prior consultation mechanisms. Australian Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 255–271. 10.1080/10361146.2019.1601681
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1601681 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ragin, Ch
    1987 The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 1999 Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Services Research, 34 (5), 1225–1239.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rein, M., & Schön, D.
    1993 Reframing policy discourse. InF. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822381815‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815-007 [Google Scholar]
  57. Restall, G., and Kaufert, J.
    2011 Understanding how context shapes citizen-user involvement in policymaking. Healthcare Policy, 7(2): 68–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sabatier, P.
    1988 An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168. 10.1007/BF00136406
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406 [Google Scholar]
  59. Skocpol, T.
    (1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674043725
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674043725 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shepsle, K., and Weingast, B.
    1981 Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–520. 10.1007/BF00133748
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133748 [Google Scholar]
  61. Taber, Ch., and Lodge, M.
    2006 Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. 10.1111/j.1540‑5907.2006.00214.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Tindale, Ch
    2007 Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press: New York. 10.1017/CBO9780511806544
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806544 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H.
    2005 Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. 10.1017/S0140525X05000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tuchman, B.
    1984 The march of folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Ballantine Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. van Eemeren, F., and Grootendorst, R.
    1987 Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301. 10.1007/BF00136779
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779 [Google Scholar]
  66. van Eemeren, F.
    2017 Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse. Invan Eemeren, F., and Peng, W.Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.12.03van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.03van [Google Scholar]
  67. Wagenaar, H.
    2011 Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. Armonk, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Walton, D.
    1999 The new dialectic: a method of evaluating an argument used for some purpose in a given case. ProtoSociology, 13, 70 – 91. 10.5840/protosociology1999136
     https://doi.org/10.5840/protosociology1999136 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zajonc, R. B.
    1965 Social facilitation. Science, 149 (Whole No.3681), 269–274. 10.1126/science.149.3681.269
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
Loading
Argument Continuities in theory and practice
Journal of Argumentation in Context 11, 200 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Argument Continuity; Indigenous consultations; motivated reasoning

Most Cited

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