Abstract

AbstractThe core function of argumentation in a democratic setting must be to constitute a modality for citizens to engage differences of opinion constructively – for the present but also in future exchanges. To enable this function requires acceptance of the basic conditions of public debate: that consensus is often an illusory goal which should be replaced by better mastery of living with dissent and compromise. Furthermore, it calls for an understanding of the complexity of real-life public debate which is an intermixture of claims of fact, definition, value, and policy, each of which calls for an awareness of the greater ‘debate environment’ of which particular deliberative exchanges are part. We introduce a rhetorical meta-norm as an evaluation criterion for public debate. In continuation of previous scholarship concerned with how to create room for differences of opinion and how to foster a sustainable debate culture, we work from a civically oriented conception of rhetoric. This conception is less instrumental and more concerned with the role of communication in public life and the maintenance of the democratic state. A rhetorical meta-norm of public argumentation is useful when evaluating public argumentation – not as the only norm, but integrated with specific norms from rhetoric, pragma-dialectics, and formal logic. We contextualise our claims through an example of authentic contemporary public argumentation: a debate over a biogas generator in rural Denmark.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2024-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-023-09622-9
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
Also cites 13 works outside this index ↓
  1. Aikin, Scott F. and Robert B. Talisse. ​​2014. In Why we argue (and how we should): a guide to political disa…
  2. Talking to strangers: anxieties of citizenship since Brown V. Board of Education
  3. Black, E. (1970). The second persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech 56(2):109–119.
  4. Brockriede, Wayne, Douglas Ehninger. 1960. Toulmin on argument: an interpretation and application. Quarterly …
    Quarterly Journal of Speech  
  5. Cooke, Elizabeth, F. 2004. Rorty on Conversation as an achievement of Hope. Contemporary Pragmatism 1(1): 83–102.
    Contemporary Pragmatism  
  6. Ivie, Robert. 2002. Rhetorical deliberation and Democratic Politics in the Here and now. Rhetoric & Public Af…
    Rhetoric & Public Affairs  
  7. Jørgensen, Charlotte. 2000. Hvem Bestemmer Hvad Der er god retorik? Vurderingsinstanser i normativ retorik. R…
    Rhetorica Scandinvica  
  8. Retorik Der Flytter Stemmer: Hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat
  9. Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Jane Mansbridge. 2005. Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updati…
  10. Deliberative rhetoric: arguing about doing
  11. Hearing the other side: deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
  12. A theory of Justice
  13. van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic Maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse St…
    Discourse Studies