Skip to main content
Log in

Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article deals with the relationship between argumentation and persuasion. It defends the idea that these two concepts are not as opposed as all too often said. If it is important to recognize their differences (there are argumentative discourses without persuasion and persuasive discourses without argumentation), there is nevertheless an overlap, in which characteristics are taken from both. We propose to call this overlap “persuasive argumentation”. In order to bridge argumentation and persuasion, we will first distinguish the latter from manipulation. In the second part of this article, we will analyze four cases of persuasive argumentation: the enthymeme, a few rhetorical figures, narration and visual argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Fidem facere and animos impellere; cf. Barthes (1970; 198–199).

  2. In his contribution to this issue, Tony Blair uses the concept of “rational persuasion”, as well as that of “argumentative persuasion”, while we prefer to use “persuasive argumentation”. Are these expressions simply interchangeable? It seems to us that they are not. Blair’s starting point is Ralph Johnson’s idea that argumentation serves the purpose of rational persuasion (even though Blair considers that argumentation cannot always be identified with attempted rational persuasion). For us, however, argumentation and persuasion remain two separate domains, since we consider that not all argumentation is persuasive, and not all persuasion is argumentative. So, for us, “argumentative persuasion” is a third and mixed territory where argumentation and persuasion overlap, as we will try to explain below.

  3. This dimension of constraint was well developed by Greimas and Courtés (1979, pp. 220–221).

  4. Let’s also call attention to another element upon which we will return in the next section: the fact that manipulation aims to impede A’s freedom of choice.

  5. For this question, refer to Nettel (2011), in particular concerning the difference between to threaten and to warn.

  6. From this point of view, we are distancing ourselves from O’Keefe’s position (1990, p. 15) that persuasion only exists when it succeeds.

  7. Though not in Aristotle.

  8. We use here the term “persuadee” just like” “addressee”, as one to whom persuasion is addressed; it doesn’t mean that he or she has actually been persuaded.

  9. We could note that this position was already present in Aristotle who develops it at the beginning of Rhetoric when he insists upon the importance of truth and fairness, which are naturally stronger than their contraries, and are more persuasive (Aristotle 2005 1355 a 21 and a 38).

  10. For a more detailed development of this question, see Nettel (2011).

  11. For a discussion on this passage, see Grimaldi (1972, pp. 87–91).

  12. We believe that the response is that it can be, but it is not necessarily. Most arguments contain implicit elements, for various reasons, in particular the economic one already given by Aristotle, because it is impossible to make everything explicit. Note that, for example, Toulmin’s backing remains implicit most of the time (Toulmin 1958, p. 106), which does not prevent his schema from being argumentative.

  13. From this perspective, we cannot share Burnyeat’s ideas (Burnyeat 1994 and Burnyeat 1996), that the term “syllogism” would not have here a technical meaning.

  14. We have elsewhere examined how metonymy’s role can be seen as both persuasive and argumentative; cf. Roque (2011).

  15. It is worth noting that in this same publication, Daniel O’Keefe also calls upon the pragmatic argument as an example of an interface between argumentation and persuasion; for its use in the analysis of anti-war images, see Roque (2008, p. 186).

References

  • Amossy, Ruth, and Roselyne Koren. 2009. Rhétorique et argumentation: Approches croisées. Argumentation et analyse du discours 2: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • An. 2011. Worksheet 5. Argumentation and persuasion. PDF document. http://www.google.com/search?q=argumentation+and+persuasion&i.e=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a#q=argumentation+and+persuasion&hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&prmd=ivns&ei=OQEnTr_ZB7LbiALE6dyXCg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=46d49926877e6066&biw=1165&bih=614. Accessed 20 July 2011.

  • Aristotle. 2005. Poetics and Rhetoric, ed. Eugene Garver. New York: Barnes & Noble.

  • Barthes, Roland. 1970. L’Ancienne Rhétorique. Aide-mémoire. Communications 16: 172–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33–1: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 2006. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Anthony J. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 41–61. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego-Pérez, Manuel (ed.). 2002. L’exemplum narratif dans le discours argumentatif (XVIe-XXe siècles). Besançon: Presses universitaires Franc-Comtoises.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, Philippe. 2000. La Parole manipulée. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, M.F. 1994. Enthymeme: Aristotle’s on the logic of persuasion. In Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. D.J. Furley and A. Nehamas, 3–55. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, M.F. 1996. Enthymeme. Aristotle on the rationality of rhetoric. In Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. A. Oksenberg Rorty, 88–115. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. 1994. Introduction to logic. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danblon, Emmanuelle, et al. (eds.). 2008. Argumentation et narration. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 2001. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, Oswald, and Jean-Marie Schaeffer. 1995. Nouveau Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, T.Ed. 2002. Topos and enthymeme. Rhetorica 20: 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, David. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33–1: 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genette, Gérard. 1968. Vraisemblance et motivation. Communications 11: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genette, Gérard. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Joseph Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, William M.A. 1972. Studies in the philosophy of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hariman, Robert, and Lucaites John Louis. 2007. No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture, and liberal democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmers, Marguerite. 2004. Framing the fine arts through rhetoric. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill, and Marguerite Helmers, 63–86. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Charles A. 2004. The psychology of rhetorical images. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 25–40. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Charles A., and Marguerite Helmers. 2004. Introduction. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 1–23. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralf H. 2003. Why “Visual Arguments” aren’t arguments. In Informal Logic at 25, ed. H.V. Hansen, et al. 1–13. Windsor, Ont.: University of Windsor, CD Rom.

  • Jowett, Garth S., and Victoria O’Donnell. 1992. Propaganda and persuasion. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibédi Varga, Aaron. 1989. Discours, récit, image. Liège-Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibédi Varga, Aaron. 1990. Une rhétorique aléatoire: agir par l’image. In Figures et conflits rhétoriques, ed. Michel Meyer and Alain Lempereur, 193–199.

  • Landowski, Eric and Peter Stockinger. 1985. Problématique de la manipulation: de la schématisation narrative au calcul stratégique. Degrés 44: c 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Guern-Forel, Odile. 1981. Approches d’une étude argumentative de l’image. In L’Argumentation, 165–178. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.

  • Meyer, K.R. 2008. Narrative argumentation: Regarding narrative as argument and the resulting need for developing narrative literacy skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San Diego, CA. PDF document. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p256258_index.html. Accessed 17 April 2011.

  • Nettel, Ana Laura. 1991. Planification, pouvoir et légitimité: La planification régionale dans un pays fédédal: Le cas du Mexique (19821988). Doctoral dissertation, University Aix-Marseille III.

  • Nettel, Ana Laura. 2005. The Power of image and the image of power: The case of law. In Word and Image 21–2: 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettel Ana Laura. 2011. The enthymeme between persuasion and argumentation. In Proceedings of the seventh ISSA Congress June 29—July 2 2010, ed. F. van Eemeren et al., Chapter 122, p. 1357–1365. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2002. The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. Frans van Eemeren, 65–82. Amsterdam: Sic Sat and Newport News: Vale Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouwerkerk, Annemiek. 1993. Helping hands: Some basic remarks on argumentation in the visual arts. Argumentation 7: 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, Vance. 1958. The hidden persuaders. New York: Pocket Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parret, Herman. 1987. Prolégomènes à la théorie de l’énonciation. De Husserl à la pragmatique. Bern, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm. 1970. Le Champ de l’argumentation. Brussels: Editions de Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1970. Traité de l’argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Sociologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantin, Christian. 2009. Un lieu pour les figures dans la théorie de l’argumentation. In Argumentation et analyse du discours 2. http://aad.revues.org/215. Accessed 23 July 2011.

  • Plantin, Christian. 2011. Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Principes et méthodes pour l’étude du discours émotionné. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozuelo Yvancos, José María. 1986. Retórica y narrativa: la narratio. Epos 2: 231–252.

  • Pratkanis, Anthony., and Elliot Aronson. 2001. Art of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintilien. 1975. Institution oratoire. Paris: Société d’édition des Belles Lettres.

  • Reboul, Olivier. 1991. Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remigy, Marie-José. 1992. Rhétorique du non-verbal: rhétorique sans paroles ou aspects non-verbaux de la persuasion? In Rhétoriques de…, ed. Olivier Reboul and J.F. Garcia, 47–67.

  • Roque, Georges. 2004. Prolégomènes à l’analyse de l’argumentation visuelle. In Chaïm Perelman. Direito, Retórica e Teoria da Argumentação, ed. Eduardo Chagas Oliveira, 95–114. Feira de Santana (Brazil): Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roque, Georges. 2008. Political rhetoric in visual images. In Dialogue and rhetoric, ed. E. Weigand, 185–193. Amsterdam/Philadelphy: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roque, Georges. 2010. What is visual in visual argumentation? In Arguments cultures, ed. J. Ritola, 1–9. Proceedings of OSSA 09 Congress, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

  • Roque, Georges. 2011. Rhétorique visuelle et argumentation visuelle. Semen 32: 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott Linda, M., and Rajeev Batra (eds.). 2003. Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, Steven A. 2008. Posters, propanganda and persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, R.K. 1994. Law frames: Historical truth and narrative necessity in a criminal case. Stanford Law Review 47–1: 39–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Valerie J. 2007. Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulez, Guillaume. 2011. Rhétorique, public et “manipulation”. In L’Argumentation, ed. Nicole d’Almeida, 135–152. Paris: CNRS Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Mark A.E. 2003. Arguing with style: How persuasion and the enthymeme work together in on invention, Book 3. Southern Communication Journal 68: 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Laura Nettel.

Additional information

In memory of Francis.

Translated from French by Christopher Renna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nettel, A.L., Roque, G. Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation. Argumentation 26, 55–69 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9241-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9241-8

Keywords

Navigation