, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 423–452

Styles of Rejection in Local Public Argument on Iraq



A campaign to pass city council resolutions opposing an American invasion of Iraq in the Fall of 2002 and Spring of 2003 provided an opportunity to examine contrasting styles of public argument. This paper examines an extensive set of news and editorial articles as well as the actual deliberations before city councils. An argument’s style constructs a relationship between the speaker, audience, and issue through the strategic use of language. Two conflicting styles of argument were apparent in these deliberations: a protest style and a dissent style. Each style operated within a different normative frame that managed tensions between unity and division, participation and its lack, and inclusive and exclusive reasoning. While protest and dissent styles conflict, each frames important relationships for public discourse and deliberation.


Style Argumentation Public deliberation War Iraq Discourse analysis 


  1. Anderson, P.A., and T.R. Blackburn. 2004. An experimental study of language intensity and response rate in e mail surveys. Communication Reports 17: 73–84.Google Scholar
  2. Asen, R. 2004. A discourse theory of citizenship. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90: 189–211.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J.L. 1999. How to do things with words. In The discourse reader, ed. A. Jaworski, and N. Coupland, 63–75. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barge, J.K., and J. Keyton. 1994. Contextualizing power and social influence in groups. In Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups, ed. L.R. Frey, 85–105. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Beasley, V.B. 2008. Democratic style: An RSVP. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilder, R.B. 1989. The role of states and cities in foreign relations. American Journal of International Law 83: 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, E. 1978. Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsion Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowers, J.W. 1963. Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Speech Monographs 30: 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers, J.W., D.J. Ochs, et al. 1993. The rhetoric of agitation and control. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brinton, A. 1995. The Ad Hominem. In Fallacies: Classical, contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craig, R. 1983. Galilean rhetoric and practical theory. Communication Monographs 50: 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig, R.T., and K. Tracy. 2003. ‘The issue’ in argumentation practice and theory. In The Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, International Center for the Study of Argumentation, eds. van Eemeren F.H., Blair J.A, Willard C.A., and Henkemans A.F.S, 213–218.Google Scholar
  14. Craig, R.T., and K. Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory 5: 248–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cronen, V.E. 2001. Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory 11: 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delicath, J.W., and K.M. DeLuca. 2003. Image events, the public sphere, and argumentative practice: The case of radical environmental groups. Argumentation 17: 315–334.Google Scholar
  17. DeLuca, K.M. 1999. Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 9–22.Google Scholar
  18. DeVito, J.A. 1967. Style and stylistics: An attempt at definition. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 53: 248–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimock, A. (2009). Creating sites for reasonable discourse: Stasis in public deliberation. Speaker and Gavel.Google Scholar
  20. Dissoi Logoi. 2001. In The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (trans: Robinson, T. M.), ed. P. Bizzell and B. Herzberg, 48–55. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.Google Scholar
  21. Dryzek, J.S. 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dryzek, J.S. 2001. Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29: 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dryzek, J.S. 2005. Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory 33: 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eliasoph, N. 1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engels, J. 2008. Some preliminary thoughts on democratic style. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 439–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, J.B. 1995. The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Fallacies: Classical, contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 265–273. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gastil, J. 1992. Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory and research on political discourse. Discourse and Society 3: 469–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grice, H.P. 1999. Logic and conversation. In The discourse reader, ed. A. Jaworski, and N. Coupland, 77–88. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Gutmann, A. 1993. The disharmony of democracy. In NOMOS XXXV, ed. J.W. Chapman, and I. Shapiro, 126–160. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gutmann, A. 1995. The virtues of democratic self constraint. In New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions, and communities, ed. A. Etzioni, 155–169. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hamilton, M.A., and B.L. Stewart. 1993. Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly 41: 231–246.Google Scholar
  32. Hariman, R. 1995. Political style: The artistry of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hariman, R. 1999. Aversion to and a version of the democratic aesthetic. In Argument at century’s end: Reflecting on the past, envisioning the future, ed. T.A. Hollihan, 286–293. Alta: National Communication Association/American Forensic Association.Google Scholar
  34. Hariman, R., and J.L. Lucaties. 2001. Dissent and emotional management in a liberal democratic society: The Kent State iconic photograph. Rhetorical Society Quarterly 31: 4–31.Google Scholar
  35. Hauser, G. 1999. Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hauser, G., and C. Benoit-Barne. 2002. Reflections on rhetoric, deliberative democracy, civil society and trust. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heidlebaugh, N.J. 2001. Judgment, rhetoric, and the problem of incommensurability: Recalling practical wisdom. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hibbing, J., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth democracy: American’s beliefs about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hicks, D. 2002. The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 223–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hofstadter, R. 1965. The paranoid style in American politics. In The paranoid style in American politics and other essays, 3–40, New York: Alfred A Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Hutchby, I., and R. Woffitt. 1998. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ivie, R.L. 2002. Rhetorical deliberation and democratic politics in the here and now. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ivie, R.L. 2008. Toward a humanizing style of democratic dissent. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jorgensen, C. 1998. Public debate – an act of hostility? Argumentation 12: 431–443.Google Scholar
  46. Karpowitz, C.F. 2005. A theory of local public talk and deliberative reform. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  47. Keith, W. 2002. Democratic revival and the promise of cyberspace: Lessons from the forum movement. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kline, S.L. 1979. Toward a contemporary linguistic interpretation of the concept of stasis. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 95–103.Google Scholar
  49. Low, D.W. 1996. The greenie genre: Noble saviours or planetary fools. Australian Journal of Communication 23: 101–109.Google Scholar
  50. Maddux, K. 2004. When patriots protest: The anti-suffrage discursive transformation of 1917. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7: 283–310.Google Scholar
  51. Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mattson, K. 2002. Do Americans really want deliberative democracy? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McComas, K.A. 2000. Theory and practice of public meetings. Cornell University (Unpublished dissertation).Google Scholar
  54. Mendelberg, T., and J. Oleske. 2000. Race and public deliberation. Political Communication 17: 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66: 745–758.Google Scholar
  56. Mouffe, C. 2000. The democratic paradox. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  57. Nock, C.J. 1995. On the dissent theory of political obligation. Polity 28: 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pellizzoni, L. 2001. The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology 52: 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Plein, L.C., K.E. Green, and D.G. Williams. 1998. Organic planning: A new approach to public participation in local governance. The Social Science Journal 35: 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Price, D. 2000. Choices without reasons: Citizens’ juries and policy evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics 26: 272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rawls, J. 1997/1999. The idea of public reason revisited, In John Rawls: Collected papers, ed. S. Freeman, 573–615. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Rogan, R.G. 1995. Language intensity: Testing a content-based metric. Communication Reports 8: 128–135.Google Scholar
  64. Ryfe, D.M. 2002. The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication 19: 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scarry, E. 2004. Acts of resistance. Harper’s magazine, May: 15–20.Google Scholar
  66. Sharp, E.B. 2005. Morality politics in American cities. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shuman, M. H. 1992. Dateline main street: Courts v. local foreign policies. Foreign Policy 86: 158–178.Google Scholar
  68. Shuman, M.H. 1998. Protecting the local globally, In American political science association annual meeting, vol 56. Boston.Google Scholar
  69. Sloane, T.O. (ed.). 2001. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stamou, A.G. 2001. The representation of non-protesters in a student and teacher protest: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in a Greek newspaper. Discourse and Society 12: 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tracy, K. 1995. Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tracy, K. 1999. The usefulness of platitudes in arguments about conduct. Paper presented at the fourth international conference of the interactional society for the study of argumentation, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  73. Tracy, K. 2008. ‘Reasonable hostility’: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 4: 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tracy, K., and C. Ashcraft. 2001. Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication 29: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tracy, K., and A. Dimock. 2004. Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. Communication Yearbook 28: 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tracy, K., and C. Standerfer. 2003. Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups, 2nd ed, ed. L. Frey, 109–134. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. In Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 130–144. Pennsylvania: University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  78. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  79. Ware, B.L., and W.A. Linkugel. 1973. They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech 59: 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Welsh, S. 2002. Deliberative democracy and the rhetorical production of political culture. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Young, I.M. 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29: 670–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska at KearneyKearneyUSA

Personalised recommendations