37
3
Making Sense
of Argumentation
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
good reasons, p. 37
good story, p. 38
science, p. 38
feminist theory, p. 38
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), p. 38
narrative, p. 40
feminist argumentation, p. 42
patriarchal reasoning, p. 42
personal testimony, p. 43
essentialism, p. 44
moral conflicts, p. 46
arbitration, p. 47
mediation, p. 47
negotiation, p. 47
collaborative law, p. 47
consensus, p. 49
In Chapter 2 , we examined ways people appraise arguments, focusing on how they de-
cide what is reasonable. We pointed out that criteria that are appropriate for evaluat-
ing an argument in some situations are not necessarily appropriate for all situations.
Whenever people participate in argumentation, they strive to present themselves as reason-
able, or as making sense. Notions of what makes sense, however, change as society changes.
Good Reasons
In the rhetorical tradition, Aristotle (Roberts W. Rhys) focuses on reasoned discourse.
What reasons are offered in support or justification of a claim? Are they good reasons , or
good enough to warrant adherence to the claim?
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 37 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 37 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
When children or adults are asked to generate reasons in support of a claim, they
typically call on personal authority (“I believe it”); power authority (“The textbook says
it’s so”); moral obligation (“It’s the right thing to believe”); social pressure (“Everyone
believes it”); or listener benefit (“If you want to pass this test, you will be well advised to
believe it”), among other kinds of reasons (Willbrand and Rieke, “Reason Giving” 420).
Reasons generated in this way are learned from early childhood and reflect the encultura-
tion each person has experienced (Toulmin, “Commentary”).
Nobody has to teach a child to demand fair treatment; children protest unfairness vigorously
and as soon as they can communicate. Nobody has to teach us to admire a person who sacrifices
for a group; the admiration for duty is universal. Nobody has to teach us to disdain someone
who betrays a friend or is disloyal to a family or tribe. Nobody has to teach a child the differ-
ence between rules that are moral—“‘Don’t hit’—and rules that are not—‘Don’t chew gum in
school’.” These preferences also emerge from somewhere deep inside us (Brooks 284–285).
FIGURE 3.1
Some Ways of Making Sense
(1) A sensible argument is based on good reasons . We will examine the ways
claims are justified through reasoned discourse. You demonstrate that you
(2) A sensible argument has a good story . People have been using stories to make
(3) Scientific argumentation is a more recent way to make sense of the world than
logical reasoning or stories. Arguments derived from science , or systematic
(4) Many people have recognized that men and women have been socialized
differently and that this socialization process affects how people construct,
(5) Alternative dispute resolution or ADR has emerged as a way to make sense
of argumentation in the world of fragmented identities and relationships that
characterize the twenty-first century. Using some of the principles identified
in Chapter 2 , ADR helps people negotiate tensions within society without
erasing important differences.
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 38 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 38 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 3 Making Sense of Argumentation 39
We learn to come up with good reasons in response to challenges:
“Why did you do that?”
“Because.”
“Because why?”
Tests of Good Reasons. Some of the ways we test reasons to see if they are good enough
are listed as follows:
FIGURE 3.2
(1) The reasons should speak with one voice (noncontradiction). This test advises you
to look for contradictions. When the religious leader who preaches faithfulness in
(2) The reasons should be consistent. Here, the critic looks to see if all parts of
the argument play by the same rules. If a politician argues for big reductions
(3) The argument should locate starting points within the appropriate audience.
(4) The reasons should be expressed in language that communicates to the
(5) The reasons should be complete. A critic searches for points necessary to
(6) The reasons must demonstrate consistent patterns of inference, drawn from
(7) The reasons must be reasonably related to the point they support. As we
explain in our discussions of evidence in Chapter 7 , there are specific tests to
which reasons must be put.
A Good Story
Malcolm O. Sillars and Bruce E. Gronbeck observe that people judge the rationality or
truthfulness of human behavior in terms of what actions make sense, and what makes
sense to people rests on the stories that are told within a culture. People make sense of
their world in terms of the stories they tell about themselves. Stories are symbolic ac-
tions that create social reality, and so, even when stories are fiction, they are not false
40 PART 1 Principles
because they reflect the experience of those who tell the stories and those who hear or
read them.
A narrative has a sense of chronology with regard to a central subject, developed co-
herently, leading to a narrative closure or outcome. Narratives generally involve a theme
(good triumphs over evil), structure (beginning, middle, end), characters (heroes and
villains), peripeteia (a change of fortune or reversal of circumstances), narrative voice
(the storyteller), and style (language including figures of speech; Sillars and Gronbeck,
Chapter 10 ).
According to W. Lance Bennett and Martha S. Feldman, we organize our understand-
ing around stories from early childhood. What counts as real and what makes sense is
learned as central actions and the way those actions are characterized in relation to the
2008. Six months later, the child’s body was found in swampy wooded area not far from
her grandparents’ home. Her remains, wrapped in a bag with a piece of duct tape over
her mouth and nose, were too decomposed for a determination of cause of death. At first,
Caylee’s mother, Casey, said the child had been kidnapped by a baby sitter. She said she
had not notified the police of her missing daughter for a month because she was investi-
gating on her own and was frightened. During that month, some people said they saw the
mother at various parties, and that she had gotten a tattoo. At the trial where the mother
was accused of murder, her lawyer said the child had fallen into an unguarded swimming
pool and negligent grandparents had covered up the accident. What makes the mother’s
story believable? Unbelievable?
At the end of the twentieth century, many scholars in the social sciences concluded
that narratives provided excellent data for their research. “Emphasizing the stories people
tell about their lives, [they] construed narrative as both a means of knowing and a way
Science
There are many versions of the “scientific method,” depending on the particular sphere
involved. However, we can identify the use of science as a means of evaluating arguments
in a more general way. Simply put, scientific logic rests on carefully performed observa-
tions, successful predictions, and the ability of others to obtain the same results. Ronald
Pine provides these essential elements of scientific arguments (42):
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 40 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 40 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
During the past 300 years or so, science has been recognized as a particularly pow-
1. Science is a human endeavor, and like any other human endeavor, it merits being subjected to
rigorous social analysis.... 2. Even the content of scientific debate—what types of theories can
be conceived and entertained, what criteria are to be used for deciding among competing theo-
ries—is constrained in part by the prevailing attitudes of mind, which in turn arise in part from
deep-seated historical factors.... 3. There is nothing wrong with research informed by a political
commitment as long as that commitment does not blind the researcher to inconvenient facts (10).
Feminist Argumentation
The traditional rationale for studying argumentation is that if disputants are sufficiently
willing and able to present their cases and respond to others thoughtfully and logically,
FIGURE 3.3
Elements of Scientific Arguments
(2) Think creatively about the observations.
(4) Conduct tests or experiments based on the hypothesis.
(5) Advance a claim in support of the hypothesis; present in sufficient detail that
(2) Its premises must be acceptable to the decision makers for whom it is
intended.
(4) It must survive the critical examination of all arguments for and against.
42 PART 1 Principles
The persistent and increasingly public nature of terrorist activities, such as the
September 11, 2001, destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, has
persuaded many people that traditional orientations toward political diplomacy are
not only insufficient but also misguided. One response to terrorism aimed at the United
antithetical, and even destructive, to the process of argumentation (Rowland). We find
them fundamentally consistent with the perspective toward argumentation described in
Chapters 1 and 2 . Despite differences between approaches to argument, all are loosely
grounded in a social constructionist orientation that views human realities as products of
social interaction. At the same time, we recognize that feminism offers a useful orienta-
Feminist approaches to argumentation enable us to follow up on a distinction in-
troduced in Chapter 1 . Using Daniel O’Keefe’s distinctions between argument 1 and
argument 2, we described utterances or claims as fundamental products associated with
the argumentation process. Feminist critiques offer at least three possibilities for using
this construct as a beginning point for reinterpreting argumentation and critical decision
1). Second, they suggest alternative descriptions for the entire process of argumentation
(argument 2). Third, they insist that a fruitful argumentation theory must include analysis
of how gender and sex influence the reception of arguments and how they constrain the
presentation of arguments.
Despite the multiplicity of feminisms, some general tendencies can be identified.
Here, we will define feminist argumentation as a process committed to critically ana-
lyzing patriarchal reasoning and revising argumentation (both theory and practice) to
include considerations of gender. For additional clarity, we will define patriarchal rea-
soning as reasoning used to justify attitudes, beliefs, values, and policies that subordinate
women to men.
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 42 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 42 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
status in argumentation, with forms of support such as deductive reasoning, statis-
tics, and expert opinion considered more persuasive. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell studied
women speakers and found that they tended to use “personal experience, anecdotes,
and other examples” to support their arguments much more often than did male
speakers (12–13).
isolates women who either cannot or choose not to bear children. Their experience has
currency in neither the feminine nor the masculine category. Katrina Bell and her co-
authors point out the danger of marginalizing African-American women’s experiences,
which have been significantly different from those of most white, middle-class women.
Feminist critiques, such as those offered by Kauffman and Bell et al., illustrate why femi-
For example, in 2011, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary
Fund, was charged with attempted rape of Nafissatou Diallo, a maid who came to clean
his hotel room in New York City. Strauss-Kahn pleaded not guilty to the charge. Partially
because Straus-Kahn was a leading contender in the upcoming French Presidential elec-
tion, his arrest became an international media incident. In response to DNA identifica-
tion of Strauss-Kahn’s sperm on her uniform, the defense asserted that the sex had been
consensual. Coverage quickly shifted from focusing on whether or not Strauss-Kahn as-
saulted Diallo to the personal credibility of Diallo. Apparently Diallo, an immigrant from
Guinea, had associated with a convicted marijuana dealer, had fraudulently claimed two
children on previous tax returns, and had understated her income to obtain cheap hous-
ing. This information, along with other details of her life story, was used to support
Struass-Kahn’s claim that the sex had been consensual. Over time, Diallo was required to
tell her story multiple times, and inconsistencies began to emerge, leading prosecutors to
give up on the case.
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 43 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 43 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
44 PART 1 Principles
Feminist theorists have used examples such as the Strauss-Kahn incident to demon-
strate the importance of giving credence to a broader variety of utterances used as claims,
evidence, and other support. They do not agree among themselves, however, on a hierar-
chy of value among such utterances.
Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin offer feminist argumentation as a solution, character-
izing it as nurturing and affirmative; promoting self-determination, mutual respect, and
camaraderie; and viewing the audience as a friend (3–4). From this perspective, attempts
to change someone’s mind are considered patriarchal and coercive, whereas feminist ar-
gumentation refers to a friendly exchange of perspectives.
162). For example, Karyn Charles Rybacki and Donald Jay Rybacki interpret feminism
as saying “men use argumentation to make mono-causal position statements and tests
of knowledge, whereas women engage in conversation, a more inclusive technique, that
invites all participants to share their experiences” (2). This interpretation of feminism
illustrates a danger Bruner associates with the practice of dichotomizing argumentation
that feminisms cannot offer a significant critique to traditional argumentation processes.
For example, Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik have written that some
types of argument rely on consensus whereas others involve adversarial processes (254–255).
They offer science and art criticism as illustrations of consensual argument, judicial argu-
ment as an illustration of adversarial argument, and business and public policy as illustra-
tions of argument that integrates adversarial and consensus forms. A feminist critique of
their perspective would say it does not move far enough beyond adversarial models. It
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 44 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 44 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
scientists in competition against each other in a search for truth. Feminist critique can
encourage public awareness of the implications of the adversarial model, as well as the
possibilities for alternative models.
Gender Influences Reception and Presentation. Although feminist argumentation dis-
courages its participants from using sex as a controlling variable, it encourages recog-
traditionally defined as feminine. A trip through the infants’ clothing section of any
department store illustrates just how early this socialization process begins. A visitor
from another planet would quickly learn that baby girls are to be dressed in pastels,
generously sprinkled with lace and ruffles. Baby boys, however, should be dressed in
bright, primary colors, often figured with tools, animals, and trucks. Both in terms of
seriously. In other situations, standards of objectivity and credibility pose challenges.
Lorraine Code points out that the credibility of a female advocate suffers from society’s
tendency to believe that women are more intuitive than men, thus dismissing them as
incapable of producing knowledge (65). However, the credibility of women who do not
project intuitive, nurturing personas suffers because they have violated their audiences’
expectations.
We hope the previous discussion has demonstrated to you why we use the plural
“feminisms,” rather than the singular “feminism.” These feminisms offer new ways “to
think through the forms and functions of, as well as attitudes toward, argument.” Despite
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 45 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 45 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
is overly grounded on adversarial assumptions and binary oppositions, and that absolute
abandonment of argumentation on feminist grounds may be unnecessary.” Instead, it can
provide guidance for both women and men who want to “engage in consensus formation,
coalescent reasoning, and non-dualistic thinking as they critique and theorize argument”
(Bruner 188). Ultimately, feminist argumentation can be conceptualized as a perpetual
1. “In a pure argumentative encounter, it does not matter whether you are President
2. “As a rational problem-solving tool, argument has no gender; it belongs equally to
men and women. Thus, far from being a tool of patriarchal oppressors, argument
is one tool with which to free women and other oppressed groups from all forms of
domination” (Rowland 362).
Feminist approaches to argumentation encourage you to resist the urge to retreat behind
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Ideas developed from feminist approaches to argument have motivated some people to
explicitly apply argumentation theory to a wide variety of conflicts. Ordinary argument
seems unable to resolve some particularly thorny disputes. Researchers have labeled these
vexing conflicts as intractable, meaning that they are long running, and have been re-
sistant to multiple attempts at resolution. W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn
describe them as moral conflicts . They suggest that attempts to mediate such conflicts
should focus on altering the political context rather than changing people’s minds. Their
goal is to discover ways of “managing moral disputes in a way that allows expression
and without the violent, disrespectful, and demeaning outcomes of open clash” (6). Their
work is part of the growing field of research and practice called alternative dispute resolu-
tion (ADR).
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 46 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 46 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
and seek solutions to complex problems. ADR is especially useful for situations where
parties needed to maintain a continuing relationship to solve future problems with one
another.
ADR provides principles and strategies for creating a social climate that ena-
bles participants to learn from each other and cooperate across divergent perspectives.
Characteristics that determine the legitimacy of an ADR process include the apparent
ability of the process to (1) facilitate an ideological discussion across interest groups,
(2)highlight the reality of power struggle, and (3) and provide strong leadership contrib-
uting to cooperation. Successful ADR practioners need a broad expertise in ADR princi-
ples (Lipsky and Seeber).
Classifying Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes
Although there are many ways to categorize ADR, it usually is divided into at least three
types: arbitration , mediation, and negotiation . Some practitioners differentiate a fourth
type, collaborative law , which is a legal process used most often to enable people who
want to end their marriage without the hostility that has come to be associated with tra-
ditional divorce litigation.
Arbitration. The ADR approach that is most thoroughly integrated into the formal ju-
dicial system is arbitration, which is a legal technique for resolving disputes outside the
formal court system. In arbitration, parties to a dispute refer it to a third party or panel
of parties, who will make the final decision. All parties agree to be bound by the decision
of the third party or arbiter. In formal arbitration, the decision of the arbiter is legally
binding. Although arbitration is not the same as judicial proceedings, it may be legally
mandated. The use of arbitration is frequently employed in consumer issues, where it may
be mandated by commercial contracts. For example, the fine print describing the condi-
tions under which you may use your credit card probably mandates the use of arbitration
for disputes.
Mediation. One of the most flexible ADR processes is mediation. Although mediations
vary, all share the feature of having a third-party mediator (or facilitator) who assists dis-
putants in reaching agreement. Mediation empowers the disputants by allowing them to
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 47 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 47 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
48 PART 1 Principles
deal directly with neutral facilitators of their own choosing, rather than with adversarial
judges and lawyers who have been assigned to their case. Like arbitration, mediation has
become a standard complement to legal systems of jurisprudence. The two processes dif-
fer in how they distribute responsibility for decision making. While the arbitrator makes
the decision in an arbitration, the parties to the dispute retain full responsibility for deci-
sions in mediation.
Negotiation. Negotiation is a problem-solving process where two or more people vol-
untarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision. For negotiation to
be successful, all parties need to identify their disagreements, educate each other about
their needs and interests, generate possible options, and debate the terms of an agreement.
A negotiation may be relatively simple, as when a couple decides whether to spend the
evening at home or go to a movie. On the other hand, it might be extremely complicated,
FIGURE 3.4
(1) Gain recognition that their concern is legitimate;
(3) Educate other parties;
(5) Mobilize support for their perspective;
(7) Make substantive gains.
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 48 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 48 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 3 Making Sense of Argumentation 49
High-profile groups such as the Harvard Negotiation Project (Fisher and Ury; Ury,
Getting Past No; The Third Side ) have developed procedures that have been used in suc-
tive law. Since 1990, it has gained widespread acceptance in the U.S. and other nations
(Gregory R. Solun, Collaborative Law). Today, the New York State Unified Court System
offers collaborative family law as an option designed to “reduce the pain, trauma, and
expense of divorce on families” (Welcome to the Collaborative).
Alternative Dispute Resolution as Argumentation
are expected to address issues, concerns, and values openly. Like consensus processes,
ADR also includes exercises in joint learning and fact finding, and exploration of un-
derlying value differences. The primary measure of whether a consensus process has
FIGURE 3.5
Reasons to Reject Negotiation
(1) Other important parties are not participating
(3) Belief that they have no means of influencing others
(5) No sense of urgency
(7) Strong negative emotions about other parties
(8) Lack the authority to make decisions
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 49 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 49 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
50 PART 1 Principles
and an open conflict of interests” (277). Maintaining the idea that reasonable people
engage in argumentation is especially important for anyone who is seeking changes that
might threaten the authority of powerful economic interests or destabilize existing social
arrangements. Because absence of argument allows elites to control deliberative processes,
the existence of vociferous debate is not a “sign of hostility, alienation, misbehavior, inef-
148–157). Some explicitly include argumentation and debate in their practices (Daniels
and Walker), whereas others seek consensus (Arthur, Carlson, and Moore; Susskind,
McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer). As you might expect, facilitators also run the gamut
from those who have studied the theory behind the Public Dialogue Consortium (Pearce
and Littlejohn 197–210) to those who simply have the knack of communicating well in
difficult situations.
CONCLUSION
When you try to make sense of argumentation, your choices and evaluations will be in-
fluenced by your history as well as your current circumstances. The interaction between
you, other participants in the dispute, and the larger political structure within which all of
you engage will influence both your ability to present an argument and its reception. This
does not mean that the outcomes are controlled by external forces. In fact, it suggests that
the discursive patterns you choose have the power to fundamentally alter the available
possibilities.
Every situation has established patterns of criteria that help participants evaluate the
possibilities for argumentation. Common patterns such as good reasons, storytelling, and
science have evolved to help people make and justify critical decisions and argumentation.
Understanding and using these patterns will help you argue effectively in most settings.
During the last half of the twentieth century, feminist theory has contributed to new
patterns of criteria that respond to social and political changes. These patterns bring an ex-
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 50 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 50 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 3 Making Sense of Argumentation 51
to gridlock and citizen outrage. They have the potential to enrich the overall quality
of democracy by endowing governments and their regulatory agencies with additional
legitimacy and providing communication channels for generating lively discussion among
citizens.
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
1. Select an editorial from your local newspaper. Revise the editorial twice. First, write a version
2. Learn what rights you have in the event of a dispute with your credit card company. Find out
M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 51 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396M03_RIEK0596_08_SE_C03.indd Page 51 17/01/12 2:08 PM user-f396 F-396F-396