Legitimation and Strategic Maneuvering in the Political Field

This article combines a pragma-dialectical conception of argumentation, a sociological conception of legitimacy and a sociological theory of the political field. In particular, it draws on the theorization of the political field developed by Pierre Bourdieu and tries to determine what new insights into the concept of strategic maneuvering might be offered by a sociological analysis of the political field. I analyze a speech made by the President of Romania, Traian Băsescu, following his suspension by Parliament in April 2007. I suggest that the argument developed in this speech can be regarded as an example of adjudication and I discuss its specificity as an adjudication in the political field in an electoral campaign. I also try to relate legitimation as political strategy to strategic maneuvering oriented to meeting the contradictory demands of the political field, which I see—following Bourdieu—as involving a double political game, a game of democratic representation and a game of power

Branding and strategic maneuvering in the Romanian presidential election of 2004: A critical discourse-analytical and pragma-dialectical perspective

In this paper I analyse differences in the legitimation strategies used by and on behalf of the two presidential candidates in the elections of December 2004 in Romania, using a combination of Critical Discourse Analysis and pragma-dialectics. These differences are seen to lie primarily in the varieties of populist discourse that were drawn upon in the construction of legitimizing arguments for both candidates: a paternalist type vs. a radical, anti-political type of populism. I relate the success of the latter type to more effective strategic maneuvering in argumentation, part of more effective branding strategies in general, but also to existing types of political culture amongst the electorate and to social, economic circumstances. In CDA terms, I discuss the "Băsescu brand" as involving choices at the level of discourse, genre and style; in pragma-dialectical terms, I view its success as partly the effect of successful strategic maneuvering. I also place the success of this brand within the Romanian context at the end of 2004, where often questionable populist electoral messages were perceived as reasonable and acceptable, as fitting adjustments to the situation and even as means of optimizing the deliberative situation of the electorate

Textual Analysis : Chapter 13.

Interpretive political science focuses on the meanings that shape actions and institutions, and the ways in which they do so. This Handbook explores the implications of interpretive theory for the study of politics. It provides the first definitive survey of the field edited by two of its pioneers. Written by leading scholars from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, the Handbook’s 32 chapters are split into five parts which explore: the contrast between interpretive theory and mainstream political science; the main forms of interpretive theory and the theoretical concepts associated with interpretive political science; the methods used by interpretive political scientists; the insights provided by interpretive political science on empirical topics; the implications of interpretive political science for professional practices such as policy analysis, planning, accountancy, and public health. With an emphasis on the applications of interpretive political science to a range of topics and disciplines, this Handbook is an invaluable resource for students, scholars, and practitioners in the areas of international relations, comparative politics, political sociology, political psychology, and public administration

A dialectical profile for the evaluation of practical arguments

This paper proposes a dialectical profile of critical questions attached to the deliberation scheme. It suggests how deliberation about means and about goals can be integrated into a single recursive procedure, and how the practical argument from goals can be integrated with the pragmatic argument from negative consequences. In a critical rationalist spirit, it argues that criticism of a proposal is criticism of its consequences, aimed at enhancing the rationality of decision-making in conditions of uncertainty and risk

"Conductive" argumentation in the UK fracking debate

From a critical rationalist perspective, I look at a fragment of the debate on shale gas exploration in the UK in order to make a proposal on the nature and representation of “conductive” argumentation, arguing it should not be viewed as a single argument, but in relation to deliberation as genre. There is no “conductive argumentation”, only various possible outcomes of deliberation, seen as critical testing of (alternative) proposals

An argumentative approach to policy ‘framing’. Competing ‘frames’ and policy conflict in the Roşia Montană case

This paper proposes a new theorization of the concept of ‘framing’, in which argumentation has a central role. When decision-making is involved, to ‘frame’ an issue amounts to offering the audience a salient and thus potentially overriding premise in a deliberative process that can ground decision and action. The analysis focuses on the Roşia Montană case, a conflict over policy that led, in September 2013, to the most significant public protests in Romania since the 1989 Revolution

Aproximación argumentativa al “framing”: enmarcado, deliberación y acción en un conflicto ambiental

This paper proposes a new theorization of the concept of “framing”, in which argumentation has a central role. When decision-making is involved, to frame an issue is to offer the audience a salient and thus potentially overriding premise in a deliberative process that can ground decision and action. The analysis focuses on the Roşia Montană case, a conflict over policy that developed over the years into an environmental social movement and, in September 2013, culminated in the most significant public protests in Romania since the 1989 Revolution. Starting from Entman’s understanding of framing as “selection and salience”, several framing strategies are identified and discussed, illustrating three main mechanisms. The way in which “selection and salience” operates via a range of argument schemes in a deliberative, decision-making process, in order to produce framing effects (including, possibly, collective mobilization) is illustrated with examples from the 2013 campaign and protests (slogans, websites, blogs and newspaper articles).El presente artículo propone una nueva teorización del concepto de framing o marco, en el cual la argumentación cumple un papel fundamental. Cuando hablamos de tomar decisiones, enmarcar un asunto implica ofrecer a la audiencia una premisa destacada y, por ende, posiblemente primordial en un proceso deliberativo que permite fundamentar tanta la decisión como la acción. El análisis se centra en el caso de Roşia Montană, una controversia sobre políticas públicas que, con el correr de los años, se transformó en un movimiento socioambiental y que, en el mes de septiembre de 2013, culminó en las protestas más importantes que se vivieron en Rumania desde la Revolución de 1989. Partiendo del concepto de framing que Entman entiende como “selección y énfasis”, se identifican y comentan varias estrategias de enmarcado que ilustran tres mecanismos principales. La manera en que operan la “selección y el énfasis” a través de una serie de esquemas de argumentos dentro de un proceso de decisión deliberativo para producir efectos de enmarcado (incluida, posiblemente, la movilización colectiva) se ilustra con ejemplos de la campaña y las protestas de 2013 (eslóganes, sitios web, blogs y notas periodísticas)

Analyse et évaluation de l’argumentation dans l’analyse critique du discours (CDA) : délibération et dialectique des Lumières

Cet article représente le développement de notre récent travail sur le discours politique, centré sur les réactions politiques à l’actuelle crise financière et économique en Grande-Bretagne. Considérant le discours politique comme doté d’un caractère essentiellement argumentatif, et plus spécifiquement comme une forme d’argumentation et de délibération pratiques, nous soutenons qu’une analyse critique de ce discours appelle à intégrer la théorie et l’analyse de l’argumentation à la version de l’analyse critique du discours (CDA) avec laquelle nous travaillons. La présentation de cette version de la CDA, et de notre approche de l’analyse et de l’évaluation de l’argumentation et de la délibération pratiques, est suivie d’une illustration de la démarche. Celle-ci se réfère à une partie du discours sur le Budget prononcé en juin 2010 par Georges Osborne, Chancelier de l’Echiquier du gouvernement britannique de coalition entre conservateurs et libéraux démocrates, et à la mise en cause critique de la stratégie d’austérité du gouvernement qui eu lieu dans le débat public, particulièrement dans les média. Dans la dernière partie de cet article, nous avançons que notre approche innovatrice de l’analyse et de l’évaluation de l’argumentation et de la délibération pratiques contribue de manière particulièrement efficace à promouvoir l’objectif de la CDA : étendre au discours les formes de critique répandues dans le champ de la théorie sociale critique. Nous nous appuyons pour ce faire sur les débats qui traitent des rapports entre critique et rationalité. Nous posons que l’approche normative que nous adoptons est nécessaire pour intégrer l’analyse du discours argumentatif à la critique, et que notre démarche est en parfait accord avec les objectifs de la théorie critique, du moins tels que Habermas les conçoit.This paper is a development of our recent work on political discourse, which has focused upon British political responses to the current financial and economic crisis. We take political discourse to be primarily argumentative in character, and more specifically to be primarily practical argumentation and deliberation, and we argue that critical analysis of political discourse requires us to incorporate argumentation theory and analysis into the version of critical discourse analysis (CDA) which we work with. We present this version of CDA, and our approach to analysis and evaluation of practical argumentation and deliberation, and then illustrate our approach with reference to part of the Budget speech which George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition government, gave in June 2010 and to the critical questioning of the government’s austerity strategy in public deliberation especially in the media. In the final section of the paper, we argue that our innovative approach to analysing and evaluating practical argumentation and deliberation is particularly effective in pursuing CDA’s objective to extend forms of critique familiar in critical social theory to discourse, drawing upon debates over the relationship of critique to rationality. We argue that the normative approach that we adopt is necessary for integrating analysis of argumentative discourse into critique, and that our approach is strongly consistent with the objectives of critical theory, at least as Habermas conceives them

A procedural approach to ethical critique in CDA

We argue for a procedural approach to ethical critique in CDA based upon the ‘argumentative turn’ in CDA advocated in our recent publications. This is not a matter of abandoning substantive critique, or abandoning the long-standing commitment of our version of CDA to critique of domination and of ideology, but of integrating them into a deliberative procedure for critical questioning, from an impartial and unbiased standpoint. The advantage of this position is that it enables us to accentuate ethical criticism and critique in CDA, rather than advocacy and partisanship. The task of critical discourse analysts is to subject argumentation, including their own argumentation, to systematic critical questioning in the spirit of open debate, with no ideological parti-pris