Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 8, Issue 1, 2019

In this paper, we analyze the argumentative strategies deployed in the Ecomodernist Manifesto, 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 Ecomodernist Manifesto. 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.

A case study of a short televised debate between a climate scientist and an advocate for climate skepticism provides the basis for developing a contemporary conception of sophistry. The sophist has a high degree of argumentative content knowledge – knowledge of a domain selected and structured in ways that are most germane for its use in making arguments. The sophist also makes the deliberate choice to argue for a disreputable view, one that goes against the views of the majority, or of the experts. Sophistry, drawing as it does on argumentative skill, is difficult to manage. The best approach is likely to refuse debate; but if debate is unavoidable, then the sophist must be met with equal skill. It will be hard to develop such skill, however, as long as the sophist’s view is thought to be disreputable.

The paper applies argumentative discourse analysis to a corpus of official statements made by key players (USA, EU, China, India, etc.) at the opening of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. The chief goal is to reveal the underlying structure of practical arguments and values legitimising the global climate change policy-making. The paper investigates which of the elements of practical arguments were common and which were contested by various players. One important conclusion is that a complex, multilateral deal such as the 2015 Paris Agreement is based on a fragile consensus. This consensus can be precisely described in terms of the key premises of practical arguments that various players share (mostly: description of current circumstances and future goals) and the premises they still discuss but prefer not to prioritise (value hierarchies or precise measures). It thus provides an insight into how a fragile consensus over goals may lead to a multilateral agreement through argumentative processes.

The paper focuses on conflicts about an already negotiated compromise, taking as its example a debate in Dutch parliament about the approval of the Paris Agreement on climate change of 2015. It deals with a variety of worries that opponents of approval may advance and the arguments in its defense thus invited. It concludes with a profile of dialogue providing reasonable options for those involved in such a conflict.

This article offers a first large scale analysis of argumentative polylogues in the fracking controversy. It provides an empirical methodology (macroscope) that identifies, from large quantities of text data through semantic frame analysis, the many players, positions and places presumed relevant to argumentation in a controversy. It goes beyond the usual study of framing in communication research because it considers that a controversy’s communicative context is shaped, and in turn conditions, the making and defending of standpoints. To achieve these novels aims, theoretical insights from frame semantics, knowledge driven argument mining, and argumentative polylogues are combined. The macroscope is implemented using the Semafor parser to retrieve all the semantic frames present in a large corpus about fracking and then observing the distribution of those frames that semantically presuppose argumentative features of polylogue (meta-argumentative indicators). The prominent indicators are Taking_sides (indicator of “having an argument”), Evidence and Reasoning (indicators of “making an argument”). The automatic retrieval of the words associated with the core elements of the semantic frame enables the mapping of how different players, positions, and discussion venues are assembled around what is treated as disagreeable in the controversy. This knowledge driven approach to argument mining reveals prototypical traits of polylogues related to environmental issues. Moreover, it addresses a problem in conventional frame analysis common in environmental communication that focuses on the way individual arguments are presented without effective consideration of the argumentative relevance the semantics and pragmatics of certain frames operating across discourses.

In this article I study the constraints and opportunities available to decision-makers in an institutional context (a county council), by analyzing the deliberative process that led to the rejection of an application for exploratory fracking. Drawing on a corpus of 130,000 words, I intend to develop the theorization of argumentation in institutional contexts initiated in pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010) by drawing on philosopher John Searle’s (2010) concept of “deontic power”. Illustrating both the restrictive and enabling force of the institutional context, my analysis shows that, while decisions which are in keeping with institutional rules are legitimate in the sense of being legal, the reasonableness of the institutional context itself cannot be taken for granted. With various institutional rules in place seeming to obstruct rather than facilitate a rational decision outcome, and a local decision, democratically arrived at, subsequently legally overturned by central government, it can be argued that bias against local democracy was in this case built into (legal) institutional design.