Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere: The Anti-#MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

19 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The controversy around the Anti-#MeToo Manifesto is undoubtedly a reflection of ‘a central rift within feminism’ today. Nevertheless, a closer look reveals that the divide has also been deepened by a series of clumsy discursive choices and misunderstandings. This paper offers an argumentative analysis that highlights the controversy’s unfortunate turns, sheds light on the divide, and shows how important and yet how arduous a task it is to manage the argumentative potential of one’s discursive choices in today’s networked public sphere.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation
EditorsBart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon R. Mitchell, Jean H.M. Wagemans
Place of PublicationAmsterdam
PublisherSic Sat
Pages813-822
Number of pages9
ISBN (Print)9789090316369
Publication statusPublished - 15 Mar 2019
Event9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) - Amsterdam, Netherlands
Duration: 3 Jul 20186 Jul 2018

Conference

Conference9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA)
CountryNetherlands
CityAmsterdam
Period3/07/186/07/18

Keywords

  • Agency argument
  • Argumentative associate
  • Disagreement network
  • Feminism
  • #MeToo
  • Rape apology
  • Standing standpoin
  • Networked public sphere

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere: The Anti-#MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Mohammed, D. (2019). Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere: The Anti-#MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 813-822). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.