Annenberg School for Communication

G. Thomas Goodnight Annenberg School for Communication Fall 2012

SEMINAR IN ARGUMENTATION

SCOPE OF COURSE This is a course introduces students to the international, interdisciplinary movement that takes as its focus the critical and reflective study of reasoning in communicative arguments. The course pursues understanding of four theories of argumentation (1) an overview to the classics, (2) a work with American traditions of argument in the field of communication, (3) philosophy of argument as embodied in critical thinking and (4) discourse analysis conducted under the auspices of pragma-dialectics. These views of arguments are work in context with communicative argument in the contexts of medicine, aesthetics, ethics, cosmopolitan norms and social theories. READINGS The readings for the course will either be posted on Blackboard or be by order on Alibris or Amazon.  van Eemeren, Frans et al. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996)  Ralph Johnson, Manifest Rationality (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000)  Sandra Jovchelovitch: Knowledge in Contexts: Representations, Community And Culture (Routledge 2007)  Harry Collins & Robert Evans, Rethinking Expertise (UC Press, 2007).  Theo van Leeuwen, Discourse and Practice (Oxford 2008). Sections from each work will be read, as indicated.

ASSIGNMENTS Course assignments will be based upon class size and interests. Students will submit topics for a final paper mid-way through the course. Papers are aimed at subjects appropriate to the Alta Conference on Argumentation and/or the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument Conference, both in spring 2013. The instructor for the course is available for office hours from 2:00-4:00 Monday afternoons and by appointment at 206, West Wing, Annenberg School for Communication. 1. Aug 29 General Introduction to Argumentation G. Thomas Goodnight, “The Personal, Public and Technical Spheres,” Argumentation & Advocacy, 2012. Ehninger, Douglas, “On Systems of Rhetoric”, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 3, 1968, 131-144 O’Keefe, Daniel J., “Two Concepts of Argument,” JAFFA, 13 (1977): 121-128 Joseph Wenzel, “Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic and Logic,” Perspectives on Argumentation, 9-26.

2. Sep 6 Argument: The Classical View Goals: The reading is designed to introduce classical theories of argument as taken up into contemporary discussion. The classical theory emphasizes Aristotle and the art of if rhetoric as an invitation to cognition. Fundamentals of Argumentation Chapters 1-2 Aristotle Rhetoric Books I and II (check internet) Bitzer, Lloyd, “Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1959 Delia, Jesse , “Logic Fallacy, Cognitive Theory, and the Enthymeme”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1970 McBurny, James, “The Place of Enthymeme in Rhetorical Theory”, Speech Monographs, 1936

3. Sep 13 Argument and the Social World: Reason and Value Goals: This seminar places argument in the workaday context of reasoning. We will compare an American view of ‘argument fields or context’ to a French effort to establish the worlds of argument in context. S. E. Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (1984), Selections. Blackboard. Luc Boltanski & Laurent Thevenot, On Justification: Economies of Worth (2006) Selections. Blackboard The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 147-160

4. Sep 20 What is Communicative Reasoning in a Social Context? Goals: Stephen Toulmin, a philosopher of science, redefines the locus of argumentation from formal validity and positivism to the domain of prudence and probable reasoning in 1958. The seminar focuses on his short 2001 study of practices or fields of argument. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Chapter 5 Sandra Jovchelovitch, Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. David Zarefsky, Communities of Argument, OSSA Keynote 2011. Ray McKerrow Argument Communities, in Perspectives on Argumentation, 1990, 27-42. 5. Sep 27 Questions of Expertise Goals: Reasons given by experts appear to carry greater weight than others. What is expertise? How is it constituted? Is the nature of expertise changing in regard to public argument? Harrry Collins and Robert Evans, Rethinking Expertise (Chicago: 2007).

6. Oct 4 Informal Logic & Critical Thinking I – Introduction Goals: The informal logic movement is located within the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument. In this class, Blair and Johnson provide an initial definition. We focus on the relation between dialectical and dialogical argumentation regarding persons and schematic tests of validity. Walton, Gilbert, Krabbe and Tindale are leading theorists of the movement. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Chapters 6 & 8* Blair, Anthony and Ralph Johnson, “Identifying Argument”, Logical Self Defense, 1994, pgs. 5-28.* Gilbert, Michael, “Coalescent Argumentation”, Coalescent Argumentation, 1997, Ch 8 Tindale, Christopher “Argument as Dialectical,” Acts of Arguing, pp. 43-67 Walton, Doug et al, Commitment in Dialogue, 1995, Selections Walton, Doug, “Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue”, Informal Logic, 1999

7. Oct 11 Informal Logic & Critical Thinking II: Johnson and Responses to Johnson Goals: The session will finish up the study of informal logic, and examine ways in which Johnson’s efforts get reformulated. Is the informal logic project translatable to critical thinking in a media age? Johnson, Ralph, Manifest Rationality, 2000, Selections Groarke, Leo, “Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument”, Argumentation, 16, 2002, 277-286 Hitchcock, David, “The Practice of Argumentative Discussion”, Argumentation, 2002, 287-298 Tindale, Christopher, “A Concept Divided: Ralph Johnson's Definition of Argument”, Argumentation, 16, 2002, 299-309

8. Oct 18 Pragma-Dialectical Theory I Goals: Pragma-dialectical theory offers a model of coming to agreement that affirms and departs from Habermasian deontological norms. This section will take up the relatively short, defining book of the model. Informed consent will be examined as a discourse where normative criteria may have institutional relevance and significance. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Chapter l0 van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: the Pragma-Dialectical Approach, 2003 Goodnight, G Thomas, “When Reasons Matter Most”, 2006 9. Oct 25 Pragma-Dialectical Theory II: Discourse Analysis Goals: The research component of pragma-dialectics is based upon discourse analysis. This section reads part of a work that provides guidelines for researching texts based upon pragma-dialectics. The dialogical model for critical reading of argumentation will be introduced. van Eemeren, Frans et al, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, 1993, pgs. 37-116 Krabbe, Erik C. W. “Profiles of Dialogue as a ‘Dialectical Tool,” Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Ed. Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Sic Sat (2002): 153-167

10. Nov 1 Argument Meets Medicine Goals: This class will identify the ways doctors and patients share reasoning in reaching medical decision. The section takes up cooperative reasoning under conditions of power imbalances. E.J. Emuel, “Four Models of the Physician-patient Relationship, JAMA 1992. C. Charles, A Gaffni, “Decision-making the Physician-Patient Encounter,” Social Science and Medicine 1999. GT Goodnight, “When Reasons Mater Most: Pragma-dialectics and the Problems of Informed Consent,” Considering Pragma-dialectic, 2006. GT Goodnight “The Duties of Advocacy: Argumentation under Conditions of Disparity, Asymmetry, and Difference,” Pondering on Prblem of Argumentation 2009. PJ Schulz, “Arguing ‘for’ the patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering, Argumentation, 2008.

11. Nov 8 Argument Visualization and Aesthetics Goals: This section examines the ways in which aesthetics complicates the practical, prudential, expert, and normative realms of communicative reasoning. The initial confrontation between Wenzel’s standard categories and Green’s project will be amplified by (l) examining aesthetics itself as a realm of argumentation and (2) exploring the injunctions of a “critical” rather than productive rhetoric. Ronald Walter Greene. “The Aesthetic Turn and the Rhetorical Perspective on Argumentation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 35 (1998) Toulmin, Janik, Rieke – “Arguing About the Arts.” An Introduction to Reasoning pp. 265-283 Bailin, Sharon, “Argument Criticism as Creative.”, Perspectives on Argumenta- tion: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, 1990, pgs. 232-240 Groarke, Leo, “Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument”, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, 2002 Birdsell, David and Leo Groarke, “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 33, 1996 Shelley, Cameron, “Rhetoric and Demonstrative Modes of Visual Argument: Looking at Images of Human Evolution”, Argumentation and Advocacy. 33, 1996 J. Anthony Blair, “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy, 33 (1996)

12. Nov 15 The Virtues of Argument This section examines virtues and ethics of argumentation. What is a good reason? What are the risks to character in arguing? How does virtue ethics guide argumentation? Wallace, Karl, “The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 239-249, 1963. Walter Fisher, “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 1948. D. H. Cohen, “Keeping an Open Mind,” Journal of Reasoning & Argumentation 2010 Andrew Aberdein, “Virtue Argumentation,” 2006. Robert Lockie, “Problems for Virtue Theories in Epistemology,” Argumentation 2008. R Kamtekar, “Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of our Character,” Ethics, 2004.

13. Nov 29 Critical Cosmopolitanism What happens when the good reasons vary, a great deal? This section studies the limits of reasonability, the development of human rights, and the shift in virtue argument to critical distance of cosmopolitan norms—an extension of Kantian thinking on ethical, practical reasoning. Kant, Perpetual Peace W. D. Mignolo, “The Many Faces of Cosmo-polis,” Public Culture, 2000. V. Roudometof, “Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization,” Current Sociology, 2005. R. Devetak, “Between Kant and Pufendorf,: “Humanitarian Intervention,” Review of International Studies 2007. Z Skrbis, G. Kendall, “Locating Cosmpoloplitaniwsm,” Theory, Culture & Society, 2004.

14. Dec 7 Presentation of Papers .