Samenvatting artikelen Strategisch Manoeuvreren
College 1
Stratetic maneuvering between effectiveness and reasonableness
Van Eemeren
Defining argumentation theoretically
Difference between languages involve characteristics of argumentation that may have
significant consequences for the way in which argumentation is viewed.
In Dutch: process-product combination.
Immediately associated with reasonableness and acting reasonably – a crucial property of
the pragma-dialectical conception of argumentation.
- Communicative act complex
- Interactional act complex
- Accountable
- Appeal to reasonableness
dialectification
Pragma-dialectical approach
Argumentation is a communicative and interactional (speech) act complex aimed at resolving
a difference of opinion before a reasonable judge by advancing a constellation of reasons the
arguer can be held accountable for as justifying the acceptability of the standpoint(s) at issue.
Maintaining reasonableness in argumentative discourse
What does ‘reasonable’ mean?
Reasonable: using reason in a way that is appropriate in a view of the situation concerned.
Aiming for effectiveness in argumentative discourse
Illocutionary (‘communicative’) effect of understanding and the interactional purpose in
attempts to bring about the perlocutionary (‘interactional’) effect of accepting.
The notion of stratetic maneuvering as an analytic instrument
Resolving a difference of opinion
It should be noted that “effectiveness” is not completely synonymous with “persuasiveness”,
because aiming for effectiveness is not limited (as is in the case with persuasiveness) to those
parts of argumentative discourse (argument) that can be reconstructed as belonging to the
argumentation stage but applies also to the parts of the discourse that belong to the
confrontation stage, the opening stage or the concluding stage, to which the term
persuasiveness does not naturally pertain.
Maintaining reasonableness and achieving effectiveness
Stratetic maneuvering refers to the continual effort made in all moves that are carried out in
argumentative discourse to keep the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness.
Maneuvering: moving toward the best position in view of the argumentative circumstances.
Strategic maneuvering refers to the efforts that are made in the discourse to move about
between effectiveness and reasonableness in such a way that the balance between the two is
maintained.
, Strategic maneuvering is required at all times because the argumentative predicament of
having to combine effectiveness with reasonableness leads to a potential tension between the
simultaneous pursuit of the two goals that make the balance that is to be kept in the
maneuvering a delicate one.
Strategic maneuvering in the various stages of the resolution process
Confrontation stage: the dialectical objective of the parties is to achieve clarity about the
specific issues that are at stake in the difference of opinion and about the positions that each
of the parties assumes in the difference of opinion.
Confrontational maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the confrontation stage.
Opening stage: the dialectical objective of the opening stage is to establish an unambiguous
point of departure for the discussion. The point of departing consists of mutually accepted
procedural starting points regarding the division of the burden of proof and other aspects of
the conduct of the discussion.
Opening maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the opening stage.
Argumentation stage: the dialectical objective is to test the acceptability of the standpoints.
Argumentation maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the argumentation stage.
Concluding stage: the dialectical objective of the parties is to establish the result of the
completion of the critical procedure.
Concluding maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the concluding stage.
Discussion stages are combinations of moves that are methodically designed to influence the
result of a particular stage of the resolution process, or the discussion in a whole, in a way that
is at the same time reasonable and effective.
College 2
Aristoteles’ Retorica
Welsprekendheid vóór Aristoteles
Welsprekendheid als onderwerp van studie en onderwijs tot retorica: 500 v.Chr. door Corax
van Syracuse.
Behoefte aan want: democratie in Athene. Plus juridisch belang. Ook gelegenheidstoespraken.
= drie vormen van welsprekendheid.
In de Retorica stelt Aristoteles zich tegenover de redenaarskunst minder afwijzend op dan zijn
voormalige leermester. Aristoteles’ benadering van de retorica is sterk pragmatisch van
karakter. Het nut ervan is volgens hem gelegen in vier aspecten:
- De retorica staat in dienst van waarheid en recht;
- Zij kan zich aanpassen aan het intellectuele niveau van het publiek;
- Zij schept het analytische vermogen door het beredeneren van twee kanten van
dezelfde zaak;
- Zij is een algemeen menselijk middel tot zelfverdediging.
College 1
Stratetic maneuvering between effectiveness and reasonableness
Van Eemeren
Defining argumentation theoretically
Difference between languages involve characteristics of argumentation that may have
significant consequences for the way in which argumentation is viewed.
In Dutch: process-product combination.
Immediately associated with reasonableness and acting reasonably – a crucial property of
the pragma-dialectical conception of argumentation.
- Communicative act complex
- Interactional act complex
- Accountable
- Appeal to reasonableness
dialectification
Pragma-dialectical approach
Argumentation is a communicative and interactional (speech) act complex aimed at resolving
a difference of opinion before a reasonable judge by advancing a constellation of reasons the
arguer can be held accountable for as justifying the acceptability of the standpoint(s) at issue.
Maintaining reasonableness in argumentative discourse
What does ‘reasonable’ mean?
Reasonable: using reason in a way that is appropriate in a view of the situation concerned.
Aiming for effectiveness in argumentative discourse
Illocutionary (‘communicative’) effect of understanding and the interactional purpose in
attempts to bring about the perlocutionary (‘interactional’) effect of accepting.
The notion of stratetic maneuvering as an analytic instrument
Resolving a difference of opinion
It should be noted that “effectiveness” is not completely synonymous with “persuasiveness”,
because aiming for effectiveness is not limited (as is in the case with persuasiveness) to those
parts of argumentative discourse (argument) that can be reconstructed as belonging to the
argumentation stage but applies also to the parts of the discourse that belong to the
confrontation stage, the opening stage or the concluding stage, to which the term
persuasiveness does not naturally pertain.
Maintaining reasonableness and achieving effectiveness
Stratetic maneuvering refers to the continual effort made in all moves that are carried out in
argumentative discourse to keep the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness.
Maneuvering: moving toward the best position in view of the argumentative circumstances.
Strategic maneuvering refers to the efforts that are made in the discourse to move about
between effectiveness and reasonableness in such a way that the balance between the two is
maintained.
, Strategic maneuvering is required at all times because the argumentative predicament of
having to combine effectiveness with reasonableness leads to a potential tension between the
simultaneous pursuit of the two goals that make the balance that is to be kept in the
maneuvering a delicate one.
Strategic maneuvering in the various stages of the resolution process
Confrontation stage: the dialectical objective of the parties is to achieve clarity about the
specific issues that are at stake in the difference of opinion and about the positions that each
of the parties assumes in the difference of opinion.
Confrontational maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the confrontation stage.
Opening stage: the dialectical objective of the opening stage is to establish an unambiguous
point of departure for the discussion. The point of departing consists of mutually accepted
procedural starting points regarding the division of the burden of proof and other aspects of
the conduct of the discussion.
Opening maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the opening stage.
Argumentation stage: the dialectical objective is to test the acceptability of the standpoints.
Argumentation maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the argumentation stage.
Concluding stage: the dialectical objective of the parties is to establish the result of the
completion of the critical procedure.
Concluding maneuvering: that is to be reconstructed as part of the concluding stage.
Discussion stages are combinations of moves that are methodically designed to influence the
result of a particular stage of the resolution process, or the discussion in a whole, in a way that
is at the same time reasonable and effective.
College 2
Aristoteles’ Retorica
Welsprekendheid vóór Aristoteles
Welsprekendheid als onderwerp van studie en onderwijs tot retorica: 500 v.Chr. door Corax
van Syracuse.
Behoefte aan want: democratie in Athene. Plus juridisch belang. Ook gelegenheidstoespraken.
= drie vormen van welsprekendheid.
In de Retorica stelt Aristoteles zich tegenover de redenaarskunst minder afwijzend op dan zijn
voormalige leermester. Aristoteles’ benadering van de retorica is sterk pragmatisch van
karakter. Het nut ervan is volgens hem gelegen in vier aspecten:
- De retorica staat in dienst van waarheid en recht;
- Zij kan zich aanpassen aan het intellectuele niveau van het publiek;
- Zij schept het analytische vermogen door het beredeneren van twee kanten van
dezelfde zaak;
- Zij is een algemeen menselijk middel tot zelfverdediging.
