Argumentation Theory in the DiscourseDiscourse-Historical Approach:

Between Critical Rationalism and Habermas' Critical Theory

Bernhard Forchtner and Ana Tominc

Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University 27 January 2010

I.

Introducing the problem 1

for emancipation, self-determination and social recognition (Reisigl/Wodak 2001: 34)?

How is EMANCIPATORY CRITIQUE justified in the DiscourseHistorical Approach (DHA)? Why arguing

Numerous references to Jrgen Habermas CRITICAL THEORY, e.g. Wodak 1996: 28f, 2001: 2, 9f; Fairclough/Wodak 1997: 260f; Reisigl/Wodak 2001: 32f, 263f, 2009: 88; Wodak/Meyer 2009: 6f. Brief but crucial references to Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorsts fruitful and highly elaborated Pragma-Dialectical approach in argumentation theory grounded in CRITICAL RATIONALISM.
2 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

I.

Introducing the problem 1I

Do these two epistemologies work together?

Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

3

Overview
I. II. Introducing the Problem Critique in Critical Rationalism

III. and in the Pragma-Dialectical approach IV. Critique in Critical Theory V. and in the DHA

VI. Two Examples VII. Concluding Remarks VIII. Discussion

4 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

II.

Critique in Critical Rationalism

Something beyond experience is involved in the growth of science: FALSIFICATIONISM -> TRIAL & ERROR (Popper 2008 [1963]:

259, 309ff, 323).

CRITICAL RATIONALISM: the only rational approach towards knowledge -CRITICAL= permanent criticism of existing theories -RATIONAL = in relation to its aim to solve certain

problems (Popper 2008 [1963]: 268)

A decision for rationalism is voluntary = rooted in IRRATIONAL FAITH IN REASON (Popper 1966: 231), i.e. a moral decision (Albert,1991: 40f.)
5 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

MnchhausenTrilemma
Any justification of a position must lead to either an infinite regression where one goes ever further back in order to justify their position, a logical circle where ones justification always refers back to statements that have already been put forward or a voluntaristic break from searching at a certain point (Albert 1991: 13).

III.

and in Pragma-Dialectics Pragma-

Pragma-Dialectics is an extended version of Popperian critical perspective, i.e. we cannot be certain of anything (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 16f.) CRITICAL DISCUSSION = [T]wo parties (...) try to resolve a difference of opinion by means of a methodological exchange of discussion moves (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 22). Critical = as severe criticism as possible of proposed standpoints with an aim to detect mistakes in them and gradually improve or refuse them. Rational = 15 rules 10 commandments which facilitate the resolution of the difference of opinion between the discussants in a 6 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010 reasonable way

IV.

Critique in Critical Theory

Reconstructing UNAVOIDABLE PRESUPPOSITIONS (validity claims) whenever we say what we mean: Everyday praxis orientated toward understanding is permeated with unavoidable idealization. () Of course, as individuals we can at any time decide to manipulate others, or to act in an openly strategic manner. But in fact not everyone could behave in this way at any time. Otherwise, for example, the category of lying would become meaningless; the grammatics of our language would in the end have to collapse (Habermas 1993: 101f). PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSILISATION based on a logic of moral argumentation (Habermas 1983: 57): [a]ll affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its [a norm/ result] general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone's interests (Habermas 1983: 65)
7 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

V.

and the DHA

The DHA refers extensively to the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, in particular Jrgen Habermas language-philosophy: the discourse-historical approach, committed to a critical discourse analyses, adheres to the sociophilosophical orientation of critical theory (). As such, it follows a complex concept of critique that embraces at least three () forms of critique (Reisigl/Wodak 2001: 32). AT THE SAME TIME Reisigl/Wodak (2001:71f.) refer to van Eemeren and Grootendorsts rules for a rational discussion which should form the basis of a discourse ethics on which a political model of discourse [and] deliberative democracy () can be grounded.
8 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

VI. Two Examples

The material world: A Young Earth creationist -God created Earth 7000 years ago. -Fallacious reasoning (violation of rules). Among others, the right to challenge the others standpoint or the obligation-to-defend rule. The social world: Two robbers discuss the faith of their victim -They might follow the rules but does this mean anything to the victim?

Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

VII. Concluding Remarks

DHA benefits from Pragma-Dialectics as Habermas does not provide a tool-kit to analyse real existing texts. Pragma-Dialectics is not just a methodology but rests on questionable critical rationalist assumptions. Replace Poppers critical rationalism in Pragma-Dialectics with Habermas critical theory of argumentation. BENEFITS: -To acknowledge UNAVOIDABLE PRESUPPOSITIONS we necessarily hold when entering a discussion. -EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF A CONSENSUS reached between parties (includes third parties).
10 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010

References
Albert, Hans. (1991). Traktat ber kritische Vernunft. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Habermas, J. - (1974): Introduction: Some Difficulties in the Attempt to Link Theory and Praxis, in: Theory and Practice. Heinemann. pp. 1-40. - Habermas, Jrgen. 1983. Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification. In: 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press, 43-115. -(1993):The Gulf War: Catalyst for a New German Normalcy, in: Pensky, Max (Ed). (1994). The Past as Future. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 5-31. Popper, Karl 2008 [1963]:Conjectures and Refutations.The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London/New York: Routledge. Popper, Karl. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies.Volume II. London: Routledge. van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman. Fairclough, N./Wodak, R. (1997): Critical Discourse Analysis, in: van Dijk, T. A. (Ed). Discourse as Social Interaction. Sage. pp. 258-284. Reisigl, M./Wodak, R. - (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. Routledge. - (2009):The discourse-historical approach, in: Wodak, R./Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage. pp. 87-121. Wodak, R./Meyer, M. (2009): Critical discourse analysis. History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: Wodak, R./Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage. pp. 1-33. 12 Argumentation Workshop, Lancaster University, 27 January 2010