ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Visual Argumentation. A Reappraisal

• by: Georges Roque - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

In memory of my mother

Visual argumentation is an incipient field in the broad domain of argumentation. Its existence has been well documented, thanks to the efforts of a few scholars, amongst whom I would like to mention Leo Groarke (Birdsell and Groarke 1996; Birdsell and Groarke 2006). Interestingly, two sessions were devoted to visual argumentation in the ISSA 2010 Congress, with 10 speakers, which is not so bad for a young field! Once admitted – even if not by all theorists of argumentation – that visual argumentation exists, it seems to me necessary at this stage of its development to reassess its definition [i].

Indeed, the first step was to give it legitimacy. This was done by giving many examples, most of them convincing, of visual arguments. Basically the task was to show that the verbal is not the only way of arguing: the stimulating discovery was that many verbal arguments can be translated visually or that an equivalent to verbal argument can be found in images. The first battle, therefore, was to gain legitimacy. Once it has been won, the problem, at least this is the way I see it, is not to go on accumulating more evidence of the existence of visual argumentation, but instead to discuss its definition and extension. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Health Care Reform And The Status Of The Public Sphere

• by: Robert C. Rowland - University of Kansas

The most important domestic policy debate in decades occurred in the United States in the first eighteen months of the Obama administration on health care reform. This debate provides a window into the functioning of the public sphere and an appropriate case for testing the degree to which American democracy remains capable of solving the grave problems facing the nation.

There is no question that the American health system was ripe for reform. Unlike every other developed nation in the world, more than 45 million Americans lacked health insurance of any kind and an estimated 25 million more were substantially underinsured, causing according to the Institute of Medicine roughly 18,000 people to die each year (“The Uninsured,” 2009, p. WK7). This situation was predicted to worsen substantially in the future (“If Reform Fails,” 2010, p. WK9; Abelson, 2010, p. WK8). The problem was not limited to those who lacked adequate insurance. Health outcomes in the United States were far below the rest of the developed world. The United States ranked 39^th in infant mortality, and 42^nd and 43^rd respectively in adult male and adult female mortality (Kristof, 2010, p. A1). Despite these failures, the United States spent roughly fifty percent more on health care in domestic product than any other nation in the world (Rubin, 2010, p.7A). The vast spending was according to health care expert Peter V. Lee “literally bankrupting the federal government and businesses and individuals across the country” (Abelson, 2010, p. WK8). Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Definitions And Facts. Arguing About The Definition Of Health.

• by: Sara Rubinelli, Jerome Bickenbach & Gerold Stucki - Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic research, Switzerland

1. Introduction
The aim of this contribution is to explore the role and use of so called persuasive definitions in the field of health and, more specifically, within the longstanding dispute about the definition of health. By persuasive definitions we mean those definitions that, while describing the meaning of a concept, attempt to support some views about that concept (Stevenson 1938; Schiappa 1993; Schiappa 1993; Macagno & Walton 2008a and 2008b; Kublikowsi 2009).

In our analysis, we will address some limitations in Edward Schiappa’s views on this issue. Schiappa defends a rhetorical practice of definition by claiming that persuasive definitions that attempt to grasp the essence of facts are dysfunctional and should be avoided (Schiappa 1993, p. 412). By exploring the argumentative exchange around the definitions of health, we will show that if, indeed, these definitions have been constructed to promote a certain way of thinking about health more than to look at the essence of health, they don’t lose sight of facts. Moreover, precisely their link to facts and their evaluation in light of facts by the scientific community are argumentative moves that promoted the development of important instruments to better understand, describe and measure health, e.g. WHO Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) that we will describe below. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Contemporary Trends: Between Public Art And Guerrilla Advertising

• by: Annalisa Cattani - University of Trieste, Academy of Fine Arts Ravenna

One of the most discussed areas in Contemporary Art is Public Art. It has existed as a distinctive trend since the early Seventies. Born as a form of guerrilla art that tried to invade non-institutional spaces through performing actions, the term refers today to works of art in any media that have been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all. Advertising shows something similar in so-called guerrilla advertising, which avoids the institutional displays in favour of unexpected happenings and perturbant installations, which are not immediately recognizable as commercials. The aim of this paper is to articulate and compare the two terms in order to define them in a dialectical, non-dogmatic way, underlining their argumentative development. This shows on one hand the passage from the work of art as an aesthetical object to contemplate inside a museum to a dialectical event developed as performances, installations and happenings that transform the public space, creating a gap into normal life, that gives space to a new unexpected point of view on our everyday reality. On the other hand advertising using similar strategies starts using new unexpected spaces like zebra crossing, public toilets, underground floor, just to recall some examples. not only to persuade the consumers, but also to entertain them through a more and more interactive setting. Moreover, we’ll try to answer following question: Does guerrilla advertising put into question contemporary art’s creative power? Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Strategic Maneuvering And Appellate Argumentation

• by: Janice Schuetz - Universities of New Mexico

 Strategic maneuvering can account for the complexities of appellate argumentation in the U.S. This specialized type of reasoning is distinct from the activity type of adjudication identified in strategic maneuvering, a theory that explains the interplay between rhetorical and dialectical features of many types of argumentation. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2009) describe strategic maneuvering as a way of reconciling how arguers pursue “rhetorical aims of effectiveness” at the same time they retain “dialectical standards of reasonableness” (p. 5). My goal to extend strategic maneuvering theory and then apply it to the appellate argumentation in the majority and dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (2008, 553 U.S. 723). To do so, the essay explains strategic maneuvering in appellate argumentation, describes the Boumediene case, emphasizes how rhetorical features permeate the dialectical processes of appellate argumentation, and gives examples of the argumentation of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts in this case.

1. Strategic maneuvering in appellate argumentation
Strategic maneuvering consists of explanations of how arguers reason in different activity types by selecting topical potential, framing arguments for particular audiences, and utilizing rhetorical tactics to influence these audiences. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002, 2006, 2009) identify four different activity types–adjudication, mediation, negotiation and public debate. Then they distinguish each activity type according to stages of critical discussion: confrontation, opening, argumentation and conclusion. The type closest to appellate argumentation is adjudication, an activity in which a legal dispute takes place in a specific jurisdiction during the confrontation stage; arguers construct arguments according to the rules of a context in the opening stage; arguers interpret and offer concessions about facts and evidence in the argumentation stage; and a third party adjudicator settles the dispute in the concluding stage (pp. 7-10).

Appellate argumentation has some similarity with adjudication (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2009) because this type of argumentation includes a decision about a legal dispute from third party adjudicators. However, appellate argumentation differs significantly from adjudication because it emanates from and is reconstituted in multiple discourses, does not follow defined phases of critical discussion, and incorporates the reasoning of multiple arguers over time about the meaning of a disputed legal principle. For example, Boumediene evolved from other appeals of Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) prisoners who claimed their legal rights had been violated when the U.S. military took them in custody following September 11, 2001. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – The Rationality Of Rhetoric: How To Cope With Human Limitations

• by: Jan Henning Schulze - University of Bamberg

The Problem: Obeying rules of pragma-dialectical model in real life is unreasonable
Within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004) discussants try to resolve a difference of opinion in a maximally rational way [i]. These rational agents are willing to engage in long-lasting and most complex discussions and sub-discussions when assessing the plausibility of standpoints. Other needs have to stand aside. In order to account for rhetorical moves, the concept of strategic manoeuvring has been added to the pragma-dialectical model (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 1999, 2006; van Eemeren 2010), with rational agents aiming for rhetorical effectiveness while still maintaining dialectical standards of reasonableness. However, the extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory does not account for systematic interaction between rhetoric and dialectics. Rhetoric is a supplement that may be taken into account, a non-rational appendix to rational argumentation that has to subordinate to the demands of the dialectical rules (cf. a similar critique by Hohmann 2000).

A specific problem arising from the idealizations of the pragma-dialectical model is that it cannot be implemented in real life. As pointed out by van Eemeren (2010, p. 4), “the ideal of a critical discussion is by definition not a description of any kind of reality but sets a theoretical standard that can be used for heuristic, analytic and evaluative purposes”. The model establishes normative standards of reasonableness for criticizing arguments, but it does not provide rules for constructing rationally justified arguments in practice. Read more