Abstract
One of the central values in argumentation theory is that of openness. While this value can be discerned in logical and rhetorical approaches, openness is most prominently featured in the dialectical ideal of a procedure designed to achieve reflective inquiry, critical testing, mutual influence and consensus decision-making. Sometimes this value is embodied in the form of specific rules — such as those in the pragma-dialectical code of conduct (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), which specify such things as rights to challenge, obligations to answer doubts and objections, and so forth. But usually openness has a more informal quality to it. For example, (1972), (1970), and (1982) all discuss the “bilateral” quality of argumentation and the way this admits to an inherent risk of failure for an arguer, correction by the interlocutor, and calls for the most stringent criticism possible. (1962) ideal of an “Open Society” and (1981) theory of communicative action both assume the possibility of free and mutual critique. In any case, the concept of openness lacks the precision one finds with, say, the concept of inferential validity in logical models of argumentation where we find not only well-defined exemplars of deductively valid forms of inference, but also a relatively clear definition of validity in general. It is perhaps because of this informal quality that argumentation scholars have not always fully appreciated how the value of openness is used in two distinct ways when evaluating the quality of argumentative conduct. In one way, the concept of openness reflects an epistemic orientation. In the other way, the concept of openness takes on a more socio-political orientation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brockriede, W. (1972). Arguers as lovers. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 5, 1–11.
Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 11, 179–182.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations, and its uses. Speech Monographs, 57, 101–110.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Hough-ton Mifflin.
Fisher, W.R., & Filloy, R.A. (1982). Argument in drama and literature: An exploration. In J.R. Cox & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 343–362). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 11–22.
Goldman, A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Goodnight, G.T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
Goodnight, G.T., & Hingstman, D. (1997). Studies in the public sphere. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 351–370.
Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18, 105–130.
Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (trans. T. McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hauser, G. A. (1998). Civic virtue, civil society and the principle of the public sphere. In J.F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a Time of Change. Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques [Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation] (pp. 138–143). Anandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286.
Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). How to resolve a conflict: Two models of dispute resolution. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 29–44). Amsterdam, the Netherlands/Newport News, VA: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat)/Vale Press.
Johnson, R.H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, R.H., & Blair, J.A. (1994). Logical Self-Defense (1st U.S. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Johnstone, Jr., H.W. (1982). Bilaterality in argument and communication. In J.R. Cox & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 95–102). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Klonoff, R.H., & Colby, P.L. (1990). Sponsorhip Theory: Evidentiary Tactics for Winning Jury Trials. New York: Michie (Lexis Law).
Lake, R.A., & Pickering, B.A. (2002). The anti(abortion) public sphere. In G.T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing Communication and Culture, Vol. 2 [Selected Papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation] (pp. 479–486). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
Maher, D., & Jacobs, S. (1995). The Clayoquot Sound controversy: The procedural adequacy of news coverage and public deliberation of environmental issues. In S. Jackson(Ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 344–348). Annandale, VA: SCA.
Maier, R. (1999). Argumentation and public debate. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 543–547). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat).
Popper, K.R. (1962). The Open Society and Its Enemies (2 vols.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 297–309.
Shelley, C. (1996). Rhetorical and demonstrative modes of visual argument: Looking at images of human evolution. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 53–68.
Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Willard, C.A. (1989). A Theory of Argument. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
Willard, C.A. (1990). Authority. Informal Logic, 12, 11–22.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jacobs, S. (2003). Two Conceptions of Openness in Argumentation Theory. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive