Abstract
Shame appeals may be both relevant to and make possible argumentation with reluctant addressees. I propose a normative pragmatic model of practical reasoning involved in shame appeals and show that its explanatory power exceeds that of a more traditional account of an underlying practical inference structure. I also illustrate that analyzing the formal propriety of shame appeals offers a more complete explanation of their normative pragmatic force than an application of rules for dialogue types.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brinton A.: 1988a, Appeal to the Angry Emotions, Informal Logic 10(2): 77–87
Brinton A.: 1988b, Pathos and the “Appeal to Emotion”: An Aristotelian Analysis, History of Philosophy Quarterly 5: 207–219
Brinton A.: 1994, A Plea for Argumentum ad misericordiam, Philosophia 23: 25–44
Burke K.: 1968, Counter-Statement. University of California Press, Berkeley
Campbell K. K.: 1989, Man Cannot Speak For Her, vol. 1. Praeger, Westport/London
Catt C. C.: 1989, Address to the United States Congress, in K. K. Campbell (ed.), Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 2. Praeger, Westport/London, pp. 503–532
Catt C. C., N. R. Shuler: 1926, Woman Suffrage and Politics. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst: 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Goodwin, J.: 1999, ‘Good Argumentation Without Resolution’, in: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, June 16–19, 1998, International Centre of the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, pp. 255–259
Goodwin J.: 2001, Cicero’s Authority, Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 38–60
Goodwin J.: 2002, Designing Issues, in F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 81–96
Goodwin, J.: 2003, ‘Manifestly Adequate Premises’, IL@25, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, retrieved 19 March 2007 <http://www.venus.uwindsor.ca/ faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_Goodwin.doc>
Goodwin J.: 2007, Argument Has No Function, Informal Logic 27: 69–90
Govier T.: 2005, A Practical Study of Argument. 6th edition, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA
Jacobs S.: 2000, Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics, Argumentation 14: 261–286
Johnson R. H.: 2000, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Erlbaum, Mahwah
Kauffeld F. J.: 1995, The Persuasive Force of Argumentation on Behalf of Proposals, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. 2, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 79–90
Kauffeld F. J.: 1998, Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing, Argumentation 12: 245–266
Levi D. S.: 1999, The Fallacy of Treating the ad baculum as a Fallacy, Informal Logic 19(2&3): 145–159
Manolescu B. I.: 2004, Formal Propriety as Rhetorical Norm, Argumentation 18: 113–125
Manolescu, B. I.: 2005a, ‘Norms of Forcibleness’, in: D. Hitchcock (ed.), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, pp. 336–345
Manolescu B. I.: 2005b, Norms of Presentational Force, Argumentation and Advocacy 41: 139–151
Manolescu B. I.: 2007, A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation, Argumentation 20: 327–343
McKenna S. J.: 2006, Adam Smith: The Rhetoric of Propriety. State University of New York Press, Albany
Palczewski C. H.: 2005, The Male Madonna and the Feminine Uncle Sam: Visual Arguments, Icons, and Ideographs in 1909 Anti-Woman Suffrage Postcards, Quarterly Journal of Speech 91: 365–394
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (trans.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN
Plato: 1952, Gorgias, W. C. Helmbold (trans.), Macmillian, New York
Taylor G. 1985, Pride, Shame, and Guilt: Emotions of Self-Assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford
United States Congress: 1918, January 10, Congressional Record, volume 56, part 1
Walton D.: 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Walton D. 2000, Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London
Weaver R. M. 1985, The Ethics of Rhetoric. Hermagoras Press, Davis, CA
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Manolescu, B.I. Shaming in and into Argumentation. Argumentation 21, 379–395 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9059-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9059-6