Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation
- David Zarefsky
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing the locus of the irreparable, and argumentative use of figures and tropes. It is difficult to evaluate strategic maneuvering in political argumentation, however, because the activity types dictate wide latitude for the arguers, so there are few cases of unquestionable derailment.
- Conley P.H. 2001. Presidential mandates: How elections shape the national agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Farrell T.B. 1976. Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62(1): 1–14. CrossRef
- Goodnight, G.T. 1980. The Liberal and the Conservative Presumption. Proceedings of the [First] Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
- Goodnight G.T. 1982. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy 18(4): 214–227.
- Griffin L.M. 1952. The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech 38(2): 184–188.
- Kekes J. 1977. Essentially contested concepts: A reconsideration. Philosophy and Rhetoric 10(2): 71–89.
- Kraus, S. (ed.) 1962/1977. The great debates. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
- Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958/1969. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Sapir, E. 1934. Symbolism. In: E.R.A. Seligman (ed.) Encyclopaedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan.
- Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
- Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Zarefsky, D. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20(4): 399–416. CrossRef
- Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation
Volume 22, Issue 3 , pp 317-330
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Political argumentation
- Strategic maneuvering
- Presidential debates
- Industry Sectors
- David Zarefsky (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA