Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



What strategies do social actors use to cultivate contexts for deliberative argumentation, and why do they expect them to work? Addressing this question advances understanding of actual deliberative argumentation and methods of analyzing and evaluating it. I analyze two keynote addresses designed to regulate discussions in conference panels that followed, and specifically discussions of how women ought to respond to racism. I find that the keynote speakers use strategies that bring to bear responsibilities inherent to the discussion form of consciousness-raising, including facing facts; listening, talking, and self-scrutinizing even when doing so is difficult or uncomfortable; and acting for change. The strategies make discussion responsibilities determinate, display the badness of moves that damage discussion, and show the speakers are exercising forbearance rather than withdrawing from discussion. These findings illustrate the need to consider how social actors communicatively cultivate local contexts for deliberative argumentation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs74 (1):112–17. 10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2013 “Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space Through Communication-Information Services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1):101–26. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński
    2011 “Argument Analysis in Large-Scale Deliberation.” InKeeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. byEveline T. Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 165–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.163.12aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163.12aak [Google Scholar]
  4. 2017 “Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.” Argumentation31 (1):179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Asen, Robert
    2005 “Pluralism, Disagreement, and the Status of Argument in the Public Sphere.” Informal Logic25 (2):117–37. 10.22329/il.v25i2.1115
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i2.1115 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooper, Brittney
    2018Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Corredor, Cristina
    2018 “Norms in Deliberation: The Role of the Principles of Justice and Universalization in Practical Discourses on the Justice of Norms.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric55 (68):11–29. 10.2478/slgr‑2018‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0026 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2020 “Deliberative Speech Acts: An Interactional Approach.” Language and Communication711:136–48. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cross, Tia, Freada Klein, Barbara Smith, and Beverly Smith
    1982 “Face-to-Face, Day-to-Day – Racism CR.” InAll the Women are White, all the Blacks are Men, but Some of Us are Brave, 2nd ed., ed. byAkasha (Gloria T.) Hull, Patricia Bell-Scott, and Barbara Smith, 52–6. New York: Feminist Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. de Veaux, Alexis
    2004Warrior Poet: A Biography of Audre Lorde. New York: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Doury, Marianne, and Assimakis Tseronis
    2013 “The Place of Counter Discourse in Two Methods of Public Deliberation: The Conférence de Citoyens and the Débat Public on Nanotechnologies in France.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1):75–100. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.04dou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.04dou [Google Scholar]
  12. Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Isabela
    2016 “Evaluating Policy as Argument: The Public Debate over the First UK Austerity Budget.” Critical Discourse Studies13 (1):57–77. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1074595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1074595 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 “Deliberative Discourse.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byJohn Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, 242–56. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315739342‑17
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-17 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gastil, John
    2008Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: Sage. 10.4135/9781483329208
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329208 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gittleson, Ben
    2020 “Trump says ‘I don’t kid’ after aids argue he was joking about slowing coronavirus testing.” ABC News, June23. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-kid-aides-argue-joking-slowing-coronavirus-testing/story?id=71404943. Accessed18 March 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, Jean
    2000 “Comments on ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics’.” Argumentation14 (3):287–292. 10.1023/A:1007805130030
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007805130030 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2001 “Cicero’s Authority.” Philosophy and Rhetoric34 (1):38–60. 10.1353/par.2001.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2001.0003 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2005 “Designing Premises.” InArgumentation in Practice, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 99–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.09goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.09goo [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007 “Argument Has No Function.” Informal Logic27 (1):69–90. 10.22329/il.v27i1.465
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.465 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 “Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.” Argumentation25 (3):285–96. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9219‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2018 “Effective Because Ethical: Speech Act Theory as a Framework for Scientists’ Communication.” InEthics and Practice in Science Communication, ed.Susanna Priest, Jean Goodwin, and Michael F. Dahlstrom, 13–33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Grella, Christine
    1979 “Reflections on the Convention.” Women’s Studies Newsletter7 (3):7.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis F. Thompson
    1996Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hedges, Elaine, and Dorothy O. Helly
    1997 “Looking Back, Moving Forward.” Women’s Studies Quarterly25 (1/2):6–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Henry, Alice, and Toni White
    1981 “Women Respond to Racism.” Off Our Backs11 (7):2–6, 20–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Holladay, Hilary
    2020The Power of Adrienne Rich: A Biography. New York: Nan A. Talese.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. hooks, bell
    2000Feminism is for Everybody. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Howe, Florence
    1981 “Controversy, Crisis, and Commitment within NWSA.” Women’s Studies Quarterly9 (3):2.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Howes, Moira, and Catherine Hundleby
    2018 “The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation.” Symposion5(2):229–54. 10.5840/symposion20185218
    https://doi.org/10.5840/symposion20185218 [Google Scholar]
  31. Innocenti, Beth
    2011 “Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul.” Argumentation and Advocacy47(3):178–88. 10.1080/00028533.2011.11821745
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2011.11821745 [Google Scholar]
  32. Innocenti, Beth, and Elizabeth Miller
    2016 “The Persuasive Force of Political Humor.” Journal of Communication66(3):366–85. 10.1111/jcom.12231
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12231 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jackson, Sally
    2019 “Reason-Giving and the Natural Normativity of Argumentation.” Topoi38 (4):631–43. 10.1007/s11245‑018‑9553‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9553-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1980 “Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech66 (3):251–65. 10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jacobs, Scott
    2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation14(3):261–86. 10.1023/A:1007853013191
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006 “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.” Argumentation20 (4):421–42. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9028‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9028-0 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus
    2002 “What Mediators do with Words: Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly20 (2):177–203. 10.1002/crq.3890200205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890200205 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1992 “Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach.” Argumentation6 (2):161–76. 10.1007/BF00154323
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154323 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jory, Constanza Ihnen
    2016 “Negotiation and Deliberation: Grasping the Difference.” Argumentation30 (2):145–65. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9343‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9343-1 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2020 “Deliberating Over Legislative Ends: An Inventory of Goal-(De)legitimizing Argument Schemes.” Journal of Argumentation in Context9 (3):399–427. 10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn [Google Scholar]
  41. Kauffeld, Fred J.
    1998 “Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.” Argumentation12 (2):245–66. 10.1023/A:1007704116379
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2009 “Grice’s Analysis of Utterance-Meaning and Cicero’s Catilinarian Apostrophe.” Argumentation23 (2):239–57. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9123‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9123-x [Google Scholar]
  43. Kauffeld, Fred J., and Beth Innocenti
    2018 “A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting.” Argumentation32 (4):463–83. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑9465‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9465-y [Google Scholar]
  44. Kock, Christian
    2017Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing About Doing. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation. 10.22329/wsia.05.2017
    https://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.05.2017 [Google Scholar]
  45. Krabbe, Erik C. W.
    2007 “On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage.” Argumentation21 (3):233–42. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9052‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9052-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lewiński, Marcin
    2013 “Debating Multiple Positions in Multi-Party Online Deliberation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1):151–77. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew [Google Scholar]
  47. 2017 “Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy.” Informal Logic37 (2):85–113. 10.22329/il.v37i2.4775
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i2.4775 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2019 “Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?” Topoi38 (4): 645–58. 10.1007/s11245‑015‑9361‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9361-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lorde, Audre
    1981 “The Uses of Anger.” Women’s Studies Quarterly9 (3):7–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2007Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, David Estlund, Andreas Føllesdal, Archon Fung, Cristina Lafont, Bernard Manin, and José Luis Martí
    2010 “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy18 (1):64–100. 10.1111/j.1467‑9760.2009.00344.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Min, Seong Jae
    2014 “On the Westerness of Deliberation Research.” Journal of Public Deliberation10 (2):5. 10.16997/jdd.207
    https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.207 [Google Scholar]
  53. Moses, Yolanda T., and Peg Strobel
    1981 “Consciousness-Raising at the NWSA Convention: An Overview.” Women’s Studies Quarterly9 (3):13.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. National Women’s Studies Association
    National Women’s Studies Association 1981Women Respond to Racism: National Women’s Studies Association Third National Conference. Storrs, CT: National Women’s Studies Association. 10.13016/M2PK0749R
    https://doi.org/10.13016/M2PK0749R [Google Scholar]
  55. Rich, Adrienne
    1981 “Disobedience is What NWSA is Potentially About.” Women’s Studies Quarterly9 (3): 4–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosenfelt, Deborah S.
    1981 “A Time for Consideration.” Women’s Studies Quarterly9 (3):10–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ryfe, David M.
    2005 “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?” Annual Review of Political Science81:49–71. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sandoval, Chela
    1990 “Feminism and Racism: A Report on the 1981 National Women’s Studies Association Conference.” InMaking Face, Making Soul: Haciendo Caras, ed. byGloria Anzaldúa, 55–71. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sass, Jensen
    2018 “Deliberative Ideals Across Diverse Cultures.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. byAndre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark E. Warren, 86–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sass, Jensen, and John S. Dryzek
    2014 “Deliberative Cultures.” Political Theory42 (1):3–25. 10.1177/0090591713507933
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591713507933 [Google Scholar]
  61. Smith, Barbara
    1980 “Racism and Women’s Studies.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies5(1): 48–9. Also published as: Reuben, Elaine, Florence Howe, Barbara Smith, Charlotte Bunch, Arlie Hochschild, and Amy Swerdlow 1979 “Visions and Revisions: Women and the Power to Change.” Women’s Studies Newsletter7 (3): 18–22. 10.2307/3346304
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3346304 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sowards, Stacey K., and Valerie R. Renegar
    2004 “The Rhetorical Functions of Consciousness-Raising in Third Wave Feminism.” Communication Studies55 (4):535–52. 10.1080/10510970409388637
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388637 [Google Scholar]
  63. Strongman, SaraEllen
    2018 The Sisterhood: Black Women, Black Feminism, and the Women’s Liberation Movement. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 30611. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3061
  64. Tanacosa, Ana, and Jensen Sass
    2019 “Ritual deliberation.” The Journal of Political Philosophy27 (2):139–65. 10.1111/jopp.12182
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12182 [Google Scholar]
  65. Townsend, Rebecca M.
    2009 “Town Meeting as a Communication Event: Democracy’s Act Sequence.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (1):68–89. 10.1080/08351810802671743
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802671743 [Google Scholar]
  66. Traister, Rebecca
    2018Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tracy, Karen
    2008 “‘Reasonable Hostility’: Situation-Appropriate Face-Attack.” Journal of Politeness Research4 (2):169–91. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.009 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2010Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2015 “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue5 (3):355–80. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  70. Walter, Ryan
    2017 “Rhetoric or Deliberation? The Case for Rhetorical Political Analysis.” Political Studies65 (2):300–15. 10.1177/0032321716651898
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716651898 [Google Scholar]
  71. Weger, Jr., Harry, and Mark Aakhus
    2003 “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance.” Argumentation & Advocacy40 (1):23–38. 10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Adrienne Rich; Audre Lorde; deliberation; feminism; normative pragmatics
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