1887
Volume 15, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper explores the argumentative work undertaken in talk and text about conspiracy theory (CT), relating this to recent scholarly debate regarding the significance of critical inquiry in the context of developments in poststructuralist and postmodern social theory. We examine discussion of CT as a site where the transformation between deconstructive, depth analytic critique and its opposite, realist claims takes place. Meta-theoretical formulations attempting to accommodate both such argumentative gestures in a coherent program for the pursuit of dialogue are shown to be inconsistent with the nature of argumentation as an undertaking to resolve ambiguity in accounts. The sharing of concerns on which agreement is to be founded are the outcome, rather than the basis, of dialogue, even if such an encounter is pursued on the grounds of shared presupposition distinct from the shared concerns which emerge from dialogue. Discussion concerning CT is a site where the formulation of motivation is made to bear on the question of an argument’s validity in virtue of either depth analytic or realist assumptions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.15.2-3.04ken
2005-01-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahamson, M
    (2001) Functional, conflict and neofunctional theories. In G. Ritzer and B. Smart (eds.), Handbook of social theory. London: Sage, pp. 141-151. doi: 10.4135/9781848608351.n12
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608351.n12 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arrington, R.L
    (2001) Following a rule. In H.-J. Glock (ed.), Wittgenstein: A critical reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 119-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashmore, M
    (1989) The reflexive thesis: Writing sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashmore, M. , M. Mulkay , and T. Pinch
    (1989) Health and efficiency: A sociology of health economics. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck, U
    (1997) The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order, trans. M. Ritter .London: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck, U.
    (1999) Risk society. Trans. M. Ritter . Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beck, U. , A. Giddens , and S. Lash
    (1994) Reflexive modernization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berman, M
    (1999) Adventures in Marxism. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Billig, M
    (1987) Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blair, T
    (1998) The Third Way: New politics for the new century. London: Fabian Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, R.H. , and D. Goodman
    (2001) Jürgen Habermas' theory of communicative action: An incomplete project. In G. Ritzer and B. Smart (eds.), Handbook of social theory. London: Sage, pp. 201-216. doi: 10.4135/9781848608351.n16
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608351.n16 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burke, P
    (1993) The art of conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Calhoun, C. , and J. Karaganis
    (2001) Critical Theory. In George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds.), Handbook of social theory. London: Sage, pp. 179-200. doi: 10.4135/9781848608351.n15
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608351.n15 [Google Scholar]
  14. Callinicos, A
    (2003) An anti-capitalist manifesto. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2001) Against the Third Way: An anti-capitalist critique. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomsky, N
    (1992)  Deterring democracy . London: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Clayman, S. , and J. Whalen
    (1988) When the medium becomes the message: The case of the Rather-Bush encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction22: 214-272.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, D
    (1997) Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fisher, Alec
    (2004) The Logic of Real Arguments. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511818455
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818455 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garfinkel, H
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002)  Ethnomethodology's Program: Working Out Durkheim's Aphorism , ed. A. Rawls . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  22. Giddens, A
    (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) Runaway world: How globalization is shaping our lives.New edition>. London: ProfileBooks.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horkheimer, M. , and T. Adorno
    (1972) Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutchby, I. , and R. Wooffitt
    (1998) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jayussi, L
    (1984) Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, G
    (1985) An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. III: Discourse and dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 25-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lash, S. , B. Szerszynski , and B. Wynne
    (eds.) (1996) Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology. London.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Latour, B
    (1981) Insiders & outsiders in the sociology of science; or, how can we foster agnosticism?InKnowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present, vol. 3. London: JAI Press Inc., pp. 199-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1993) We have never been modern. Trans. C. Porter . New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1999) Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2000) When things strike back: A possible contribution of `science studies' to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology 51.1: 107-123. doi: 10.1080/000713100358453
    https://doi.org/10.1080/000713100358453 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2004a) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30: 225-247. doi: 10.1086/421123
    https://doi.org/10.1086/421123 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2004b) Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mahajan, R
    (2003) Full spectrum dominance: U.S. power in Iraq and beyond. New York: Seven Stories Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. McKenzie, K.G
    (1998) In the Gulf between prejudice and culture: Talking the experience of Westernexpatriates in the Middle East. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. McKenzie, K
    (2001) Fact and the narratives of war: Produced undecidability in accounts of armed conflict. Human Studies 24.3: 187-209. doi: 10.1023/A:1017543122464
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017543122464 [Google Scholar]
  39. . (in submission) The institutional provision for silence: On the evasive nature of politicians' answers to reporters' questions. Journal of Language and Politics.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McKenzie, K. , and T. van Teeffelen
    (1993) Taking the higher ground between West and Middle East: The discursive achievement of meta-perspective in representations of the Arab Other. Pragmatics3.3: 305-331.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Osborne, T. , and N. Rose
    (1999) Do the social sciences create phenomena?: The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology50.3: 367-396. doi: 10.1080/000713199358617
    https://doi.org/10.1080/000713199358617 [Google Scholar]
  42. Palast, G
    (2003) The best democracy money can buy: The truth about corporate cons, globalization, and high-finance fraudsters. Revised American edition. New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Parenti, M
    (2003) Rulers of the planet: Why US leaders intervene everywhere. Global Dialogue5.1-2: 91-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pollner, M
    (1987) Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Potter, J
    (1996) Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  46. Potter, J. , and I. Litton
    (1985) Some problems underlying the theory of social representations. British Journal of Social Psychology24: 81-90. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1985.tb00664.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1985.tb00664.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, H
    (1992)  Lectures on conversation, volumes I & II , ed. G. Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell.
  48. Sacks, H. , E.A. Schegloff , and G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50.4: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, E.A
    (1988) From interview to confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Researchon Language and Social Interaction22: 215-240. doi: 10.1080/08351818809389304
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389304 [Google Scholar]
  50. Smith, D
    (1978) K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology12: 23-53. doi: 10.1177/003803857801200103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200103 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Eemeren, F.H. , and R. Grootendorst
    (1987) Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation1: 283-301. doi: 10.1007/BF00136779
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Walton, D
    (1992) The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Walton, D.N
    (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Weltman, D
    (2004) Political identity and the Third Way: Some social-psychological implications of the current anti-ideological turn. British Journal of Social Psychology43: 83-98. doi: 10.1348/014466604322915999
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604322915999 [Google Scholar]
  56. Winch, P
    (1958) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Second edition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wittgenstein, L
    (1967) Zettle, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright , trans. G.E.M. Anscombe . Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.15.2-3.04ken
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Argument , Conspiracy theory , Conversation , Critical inquiry and Dialogue
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