ABSTRACT What does it mean to have and maintain a position of integrity when reasoning and arguing in a series of different kinds of dialogues? When participants in a critical discussion fail to reach an agreement on the rational merits of their response to a practical problem, they may remain hopeful of reaching a compromise solution in a negotiation dialogue that they perceive as the most rational one that is socially feasible. This article considers whether one’s commitments can be managed in such a way as to preserve the integrity of one’s position across these dialogues. After all, in compromise formation practical concerns may interfere with epistemic ambitions, and one may have to trade away what was deemed essential to one’s position in critical discussion. Conversational integrity is maintained when one’s position is sufficiently transparent, stable, inclusive, and authentic. These characteristics may provide guidance for those involved in political dealmaking.

Research Article| January 01 2008 Room for Maneuver When Raising Critical Doubt Jan Albert Van Laar Jan Albert Van Laar Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2008) 41 (3): 195–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655313 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Jan Albert Van Laar; Room for Maneuver When Raising Critical Doubt. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2008; 41 (3): 195–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655313 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2008 The Pennsylvania State University2008The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.