Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In today’s ‘networked’ public sphere, arguers are faced with countless controversies roaming out there. Knowing what is at stake at any point in time, and keeping under control the contribution one’s arguments make to the different interrelated issues requires careful craft (e.g. Mohammed and Zarefsky, in Feteris, Garssen and Snoeck Henkemans (eds) Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2011). In this paper, I explore the difficulty of determining what is at stake at any moment of the argumentative situation and explore the challenge that that creates for examining the strategic shape of arguments. I argue that a meaningful examination of networked argumentative encounters requires that the boundaries of an encounter remain ‘fluid. In dealing with the fluid boundaries, I suggest to identify “argumentative associates” and “standing standpoints”.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)307-322
Number of pages15
JournalArgumentation
Volume33
Issue number3
Early online date23 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2019

Keywords

  • Argumentative associate
  • Argumentative potential
  • Commitments
  • Multiple issues
  • Public arguments
  • Standing standpoint
  • Strategic manoeuvring

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this