Abstract
Polarization is a generalized feature of intellectual life. Few authors however have studied polarities as they actually occur in every day life and discourse. This paper proposes two hypotheses to account for the pervasiveness of polarities. The first relates to uncertainty. Almost everything that touches our lives is filled with irreducible uncertainty. As a rhetoric, polarization uses arguments from (future) consequences in order to manage the future. The second hypothesis relates to phenomenology: body and behavior incorporate tensions or dualistic properties which are easily reproduced in language and thinking. Polarized thinking helps people to imagine extremes so that they may better anticipate the spectrum of possibilities available for action. The article concludes with remarks on the dangers of (over)generalizing and universalizing particulars (or extremes) in polarity based argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Apel, K. O.: 1980, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, Routledge, London.
Berger, P. and T. Luckmann: 1967, The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, New York.
Brummett, B.: 1991, Contemporary Apocalyptic Rhetoric, Praeger, New York.
Burke, K.: 1969, A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cassirer, E.: 1923, La philosophie des formes symboliques (I): le langage, Minuit, Paris, 1972.
Cassirer, E.: 1927, Individu et Cosmos dans la philosophie de la Renaissance, Minuit, Paris, 1983.
Cassirer, E.: 1929, La philosophie des formes symboliques (III): la phénoménologie de la connaissance, Minuit, Paris, 1972.
Downs, A.: 1957, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper and Row, New York.
Elias, N.: 1987, La société des individus, Fayard, Paris, 1991.
Furedi, F.: 1997, Culture of Fear, Cassell.
Gieryn, T. F.: 1983, ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science From Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review 48, 781–795.
Godin, B.: 1997, ‘The Rhetoric of Technology: The Microprocessor Health Care Card', Social Studies of Science 27(3), 865–902.
Goody, J.: 1977, La raison graphique: la domestication de la pensée sauvage. Paris: Minuit.
Groarke, L.: 1990, Greek Scepticism: Anti-Realist Trends in Ancient Thought, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal.
Habermas, J.: 1986, Morale et communication, Cerf, Paris.
Husserl, E.: 1929, Logique formelle et logique transcendentale, PUF (Epiméthée), Paris, 1984.
Husserl, E.: 1952, Recherches phénoménologiques pour la constitution, PUF (Épiméhée), Paris, 1982.
Kant, E.: 1787, Critique de la raison pure, Aubier, Paris, 1997.
Kennedy, G. A.: 1994, A New History of Rhetoric, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Kling, R.: 1992, ‘Computerization and Social Transformation', Science, Technology and Human Values 16, 342–367.
Lloyd, G. E. R.: 1966, Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lloyd, G. E. R.: 1996, Adversaries and Authorities: Investigations into Ancient Greek and Chinese Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lukasiewicz, J.: 1910, ‘Sur le principe de contradiction chez Aristote', Rue Descartes 1–2 (1991), 9–32.
Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1945, Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard, Paris, 1993.
Miller, J.: 1996, Public Understanding of Science and Technology in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis, Symposium on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Tokyo.
Montandon, A.: 1997, Politesse et savoir-vivre, Economica, Paris.
Moscovici, S.: 1984 ‘The Phenomenon of Social Representations', in R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds.), Social Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mulkay, M.: 1993, ‘Rhetoric of Hope and Fear in the Great Embryo Debate', Social Studies of Science 32, 721–742.
Mulkay, M.: 1994, ‘Changing Minds about Embryo Research', Public Understanding of Science 3, 195–213.
Mulkay, M.: 1995a, ‘Galileo and the Embryo Debate: Religion and Science in Parliament over Research on Human Embryos', Social Studies of Science 25, 499–532.
Mulkay, M.: 1995b, ‘Parliamentary Ambivalence in Relation to Embryo Research', Social Studies of Science 25, 149–163.
Mulkay, M.: 1996, ‘Frankenstein and the Debate Over Embryo Research', Science, Technology and Human Values 21, 157–176.
Nagel, T.: 1986, The View From Nowhere, Oxford University Press, New York.
Nature: 1997, ‘Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology', 387, 845–847.
Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (Indiana).
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyleca: 1988 Traité de l'argumentation, Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Brussels.
Piaget, J.: 1967, La construction du réel chez l'enfant, Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchâtel.
Prewitt, K.: 1987, ‘Public Statistics and Democratic Politics', in W. Alonso and P. Starr (eds.), The Politics of Numbers, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 261–274.
Rabin, M.: 1998, ‘Psychology and Economics', Journal of Economic Literature 36, 11–46.
Renaut, A.: 1997, Kant aujourd'hui, Aubier, Paris.
Revel, J.: 1986, Les usage de la civilité, in P. Ariès et G. Duby (eds.), Histoire de la vie privée, Seuil, Paris, pp. 169–209.
Saussure, F.: 1960, Cours de linguistique générale, Payot, Paris, p. 163.
Schutz, A.: 1932, The Phenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern University Press, Evanston (Ilinois), 1967.
Spencer-Brown, C.: 1971, Laws of Forms, Allen & Unwin, London.
Taylor, C.: 1985, ‘Interpretation and the Sciences of Man', in Philosophical Papers II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15–57.
Walton, D. N.: 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Pennsylvania University Press, Pennsylvania.
Walton, D. N.: 1996a, Arguments From Ignorance, Pennsylvania University Press, Pennsylvania.
Walton, D. N.: 1996b, ‘Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments', Philosophy and Rhetoric 29, 301–313.
Wild, C. and W. Peissl: 1992, ‘Patient Cards: An Assessment of a New Information Technology in Health Care', Project Appraisal 7(2), 67–78.
Wolff, F.: 1997, Dire le monde, PUF, Paris.
Woolgar, S.: 1980, ‘Discovery: Logic and Sequences in a Scientific Text', in K. D. Knorr-Cetina and R. Whitley (eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 239–268.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godin, B. Argument from Consequences and the Urge to Polarize. Argumentation 13, 347–365 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007815429173
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007815429173