Advertisement

Understanding Debate as Politics

Chapter
  • 584 Downloads
Part of the Rhetoric, Politics and Society book series (RPS)

Abstract

The book’s core idea is to present and explain how different actual and virtual debates can be understood and analysed as political actions. We want to provide tools and ways for grasping the complex phenomenon of politics by concentrating on debate, including debates carried out in, or reflected by, documents. The approach proposed allows for a nuanced and detailed understanding of politics, as it does justice to the aims of political actors, taking into account their actions, interests, moves and strategies, and situating them in relation to the different contexts in which their contributions make a difference. The first chapter presents the theoretical and methodological background by answering two crucial questions: Why study debate as politics? What exactly do we mean by ‘politics’?

Keywords

European Union Political Action Ideal Type Academic Debate Political Aspect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

Literature

  1. Austin, J.L. 1962 [1990]. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bagehot, Walter. 1956 [1872]. Physics and Politics. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, Jeremy. 1843. An Essay on Political Tactics. In Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2. Edinburgh: William Tait. http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1921/113915
  4. Crick, Bernard. 1962 [2000]. In Defence of Politics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. De Mille, James. 1878. Elements of Rhetoric. New York: Harper & Brothers. http://tinyurl.com/mhps972 Google Scholar
  6. Haapala, Taru. 2013. The Mockery of Adbusters Magazine in the Classical Tradition of Political Rhetoric. In The Distant Present, ed. Tuula Vaarakallio and Taru Haapala, 71–89. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  7. Hamilton, William Gerard. 1927 [1808]. Parliamentary Logic. Edited by Courtney S. Kenny. Cambridge: Heffers.Google Scholar
  8. Ilie, Cornelia. 2004. Insulting as (un)parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, Series: Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, ed. Paul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2000. Zeitschichten. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin, James. 2014. Politics and Rhetoric: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1947 [1980]. Humanisme et terreur. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  13. Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1887 [1981]. Zur Genealogie der Moral. In Werke II, ed. Karl Schlechta, 761–900. Frankfurt/M: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  15. Oakeshott, Michael. 1975 [1991]. On Human Conduct. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Palonen, Kari. 1993. Reading Street Names Politically. In Reading the Political, eds. Kari Palonen, and Tuija Parvikko, 103–121. Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2003. Four Times of Politics: Policy, Polity, Politicking and Politicization. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 28(2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2006. The Struggle with Time. A Conceptual History of ‘Politics’ as an Activity. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2013. Taking Distance as a Condition of Political Analysis. In The Distant Present, eds. Tuula Vaarakallio, and Taru Haapala, 12–27. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2014a. Fair Play and Scarce Time: Aspects of the 1882 Procedural Reform Debate in the British Parliament. In The Politics of Dissensus: Parliament in Debate, eds. Kari Palonen, José María Rosales, and Tapani Turkka, 327–348. Santander: Cantabria University Press/McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2014c. The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure. The Formation of the Westminster Procedure as a Parliamentary Ideal Type. Leverkusen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  22. Redlich, Josef. 1905. Recht und Technik des Englischen Parlamentarismus. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  23. Rohe, Karl. 1978 [1994]. Politik. Begriffe und Wirklichkeiten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  24. Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1966 [1972] Plaidoyer pour les intellectuels. In Jean-Paul Sartre, Situations VIII, 375-455. Paris: GallimardGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmitt, Carl. 1932 [1979]. Der Begriff des Politischen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought I–II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2002a. Visions of Policics. Vol. 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2007. Paradiastole. In Renaissance Figures of Speech, eds. Sylvia Adamson, Gavin Alexander, and Karin Ettenhuber, 147–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2008. Quentin Skinner Interviewed by Alan Macfarline 10th January 2008. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/197060/skinner.txt?sequence=1. Accessed 7 May 2016.
  31. Steinmetz, Willibald, Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey, and Hans-Georg Haupt, eds. 2013. Writing Political History Today. Frankfurt/M: Campus.Google Scholar
  32. Vieira, Ryan. 2015. Time and Politics. Parliament and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and the British World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Weber, Max. 1904 [1973]. Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. herausgegeben von Johannes Winckelmann, 146–214. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Jyväskylä and Technical, University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations