Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cultural Embeddedness of Arguments Raised as a Part of the Bulgarian Debate About the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents an analysis of the cultural embeddedness of arguments, raised as a part of the Bulgarian debate about the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The method I employed was the localization procedure of Generalized Argumentation theory. Through a qualitative analysis of empirical argumentation data, I identified arguments in favour of or against the ratification of the Istanbul convention. Information about the cultural background against which these arguments were raised, i.e. about Bulgarian culture, was gathered from the part of the ninth wave of the European Social Survey that used the Portrait Value Questionnaire—an instrument for measuring human values, based on Schwartz’s theory of human values. By establishing a certain relationship between the arguments and the cultural background information, I came to the conclusion that the debate between the proponents and the opponents of the ratification represented a conflict between the basic values of universalism and tradition, and more particularly, between the lower-order values of equality and respect for tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data used was downloaded from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org and https://parliament.bg.

Notes

  1. If a country signs a convention, this just means that it will consider ratifying the convention. Ratifying a convention, on the other hand, means implementing it into the laws of the country. It must also be noted that even though Turkey had originally ratified the Istanbul convention, on 1 July 2021 it eventually withdrew from it.

  2. In a survey by Gallup International, conducted between 2 and 9 February 2018, 19% of the respondents were in favour of the ratification, and 58% were against it. In another survey by Trend, conducted between 1 and 8 February 2018, 16% of the respondents were in favour of the ratification, and 46% were against it. Furthermore, the results from a study conducted by Media Metrics suggested that in 24.6% of the public comments related to the convention that were posted on Facebook or Twitter in January 2018, the convention was viewed in a positive light, whereas in 73.5% of the public comments the convention was viewed in a negative light.

  3. For a discussion of conductive arguments see for example Govier (2001, Chapter 12).

  4. Practically the same two variants of the scheme are also distinguished by Brun and Betz (2016) under the names ‘practical syllogism principle’ and ‘optimal choice principle’.

  5. However, since the Parliament are supposed to represent the Bulgarian people as a whole, we can say that goal G was not simply a goal of the Parliament, but a goal of the Bulgarian people as a whole.

  6. We have no reason to think that Bulgarians would not recognize as legitimate or reasonable other arguments that refer to the same goals, but are in favour of or against another course of action (not the ratification of the Istanbul convention). Thus, we can assume that each goal, identified in the empirical data corresponds to a broader expression rule, legislating the usage of an argument. If we use ‘A’ to designate some course of action and ‘G’—one of these goals, this expression rule can be formulated as follows. “In the context of a public debate, one can argue that A should be brought about, because it is a means of realizing G.” Such a “generalization” of the expression rules is the fifth step in the “expression analytic procedure”, proposed in Zhang (2020).

  7. Schwartz speaks of motivational goals, related to each basic value (Schwartz 1992, 2004). Each of the goals from the arguments in favour of or against the ratification of the convention might be considered to be such a motivational goal.

  8. In his articulation of the notion of value-based argumentation frameworks, Bench-Capon (2003) makes use of the idea of associating arguments with values, but his explanation of the relationship between the two does not go any further from saying that certain arguments promote certain values. In his later work with Atkinson (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2006; Atkinson and Bench-Capon 2007), values are no longer associated with arguments, but are considered to be a part of the arguments—incorporated in an argumentation scheme that is used as a basis for a model of practical reasoning.

  9. The idea of using the order of values as an indicator of an argument’s strength is also utilized in Bench-Capon (2003), but not preserved in the later model of practical reasoning (Atkinson et al. 2006; Atkinson and Bench-Capon 2007). The model of practical reasoning employs an understanding of values, according to which values do not vary in importance, and if values do not vary in importance, they cannot be ordered. It can be noted that the strength of the arguments in favour of or against the ratification also depended on factors that are different from the importance of the basic values associated with them. Such factors include the degree in which the realization of the given goal would promote the given values, the probability of the given goal being realized in case the convention was ratified, or respectively, not ratified, as well as certain circumstances at the time the arguments were raised (for example, the higher the level of violence against women at that time, the stronger the argument stating that the ratification is a means to decrease the level of violence against women). If the strength of an argument is understood in a broader sense as persuasiveness, then factors such as emotional appeal and repetition of the given argument also play a role. These factors, however, lie beyond the scope of the present inquiry. For the purposes of the present inquiry, it is sufficient to assume that the importance of the corresponding basic values is one of the factors on which the strength of the arguments depends.

  10. Initially, there was an eleventh basic value—spirituality—but it was dropped out of the model due to incompatibility with the empirical data.

  11. For convenience, each description is abbreviated with a code, consisting of several letters. The codes are taken from the original survey.

References

  • Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171: 855–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2018. Taking account of the actions of others in value-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 254: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baychinska, Krasimira [Бaйчинcкa, Кpacимиpa]. 2011. The Values of Contemporary Bulgarian Culture [Цeннocтитe нa cъвpeмeннaтa бългapcкa кyлтypa]. Sofia: Gutenberg [Coфия: Гyтeнбepг].

  • Bench-Capon, Trevor. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brun, Georg and Gregor Betz. 2016. Analyzing practical argumentation. In The Argumentative turn in policy analysis, ed. S. O. Hansson, G. H. Hadorn, 39–78. Springer.

  • Endres, Danielle. 2013. animist intersubjectivity as argumentation: Western shoshone and southern Paiute arguments against a nuclear waste site at yucca mountain. Argumentation 27: 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvanova, Magdalena [Гapвaнoвa, Maгдaлeнa]. 2013. A Transformation in the Values of the Contemporary Bulgarian [Tpaнcфopмaция в цeннocтитe нa cъвpeмeнния бългapин]. Sofia: For Letters [Coфия: Зa бyквитe – O пиcмeнexь].

  • Garvanova, Magdalena, and Eva Papazova. 2019. Basic individual values of Bulgarian students in emerging adulthood: A comparative analysis. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung 22(3): 641–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, Trudy. 2001. A practical study of argument. Cengage Learning: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, David. 2017. On reasoning and argument. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, Shier [鞠实儿]. 2020. Generalized argumentation theory and methods [广义论证的理论与方法]. Studies in Logic [逻辑学研究] 13(1):1–27.

  • Ju, Shier, Zhi-xi Chen, and Yang He. 2021. Political argumentation by reciting poems in the spring and autumn period of ancient China. Argumentation 35: 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, Shier, Wen Liu, and Zhixi Chen. 2020. A study of the argumentation about the imperial title issue in Ming dynasty from the perspective of generalized argumentation theory [L’argumentation sur la titulature impériale dans la dynastie Ming au prisme de la « Théorie généralisée de l’argumentation »]. Argumentation et analyse du discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis]. https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.4583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2018. Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach. Argumentation 32: 519–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Dawei, Yanjin Chen, and Ju. Shier. 2018. Argumentative patterns in Chinese medical consultations. Argumentation 32: 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plantin, Christian. 2021. Attack, defense and counter-attack in the Inuit duel songs of Ammassalik. Argumentation 35: 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., and Dale Hample. 2015. Orientations to interpersonal arguing in the United Arab Emirates, with comparisons to the United States, China, and India. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44: 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudenv, Maksim, Vladimir Magun, and Shalom Schwartz. 2018. Relations among higher order values around the world. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 49(8): 1165–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santibáñez, C., and Dale Hample. 2015. Orientations toward interpersonal arguing in Chile. Pragmatics 25: 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Shalom. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Shalom. 2003. Value orientations. European Social Survey Core Questionnaire Development, Chapter 7. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2021.

  • Schwartz, Shalom. 2004. Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In Comparing cultures, dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective, ed. H. Vinken, J. Soeters and P. Ester, 43–73. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

  • Schwartz, Shalom. 2015. Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In Handbook of value, ed. D. Sander & T. Brosch, 63–84. Oxford University Press.

  • Walton, Douglas. 2013. Value-based practical reasoning. In From knowledge representation to argumentation in AI, law and policy making: A Festschrift in Honour of Trevor Bench-Capon, ed. K. Atkinson, H. Prakken, and A. Wyner, 259–282. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Yun. 2019. Argument by analogy in ancient China. Argumentation 33: 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Yun, Dale Hample, and X. Wang. 2015. A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Argumentation 29: 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Xiaoqi. 2020. Analytical research on the expression of argumentative discourse from the perspective of generalized argumentation—in the example of Jack Ma’s verbal advocacy of 996 Work System. Studies in Logic [逻辑学研究] 13(6): 131–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhe, Yu. 2020. A context-based argumentation framework with values. A paper read at the conference: Computational models of natural arguments 2020.

Information

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China

    Hristo Valchev

Authors
  1. Hristo Valchev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hristo Valchev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Parts of the text of the Istanbul convention, considered by the opponents of the ratification to be problematic:

‘Gender’ shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men. (Article 3-c)

Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women or on stereotyped roles for women and men. (Article 12-1)

Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education. (Article 14-1)

Parties shall ensure that a gender-sensitive interpretation is given to each of the Convention grounds and that where it is established that the persecution feared is for one or more of these grounds, applicants shall be granted refugee status according to the applicable relevant instruments. (Article 60-2)

The Group of experts on action against violence against women and domestic violence (hereinafter referred to as “GREVIO”) shall monitor the implementation of this Convention by the Parties. (Article 66-1)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valchev, H. The Cultural Embeddedness of Arguments Raised as a Part of the Bulgarian Debate About the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Argumentation 36, 177–202 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09560-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09560-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation