Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Higher-Order Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentation

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a critical discussion, interlocutors can strategically maneuver by shading their expressed degree of standpoint commitment for rhetorical effect. When is such strategic shading reasonable, and when does it cross the line and risk fallacious derailment of the discussion? Analysis of President George W. Bush’s 2002–2003 prewar commentary on Iraq provides an occasion to explore this question and revisit Douglas Ehninger’s distinction between argumentation as “coercive correction” and argumentation as a “person-risking enterprise.” Points of overlap between Ehninger’s account and pragma-dialectical argumentation theory suggest avenues for harmonization of rhetorical and dialectical perspectives on argumentation. Out of this conceptual convergence comes theoretical resources for understanding strategic maneuvering, by accounting for ways that discussants exploit gaps between their externalized and actual “discussion attitude.” As such higher-order strategic maneuvering played a major role in the 2003 Iraq prewar “discourse failure,” perspicacious understanding of this particular argumentative maneuver carries practical, as well as theoretical import.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arquilla, J., and D. Ronfeldt. 1999. Noöpolitik: Toward an American information strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J.A. 2003. The relationships among logic, dialectic and rhetoric. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and F.S. Henkemans, 125–131. Amsterdam: SicSat.

  • Bush, G.W. 2002a. Bush letter: America intends to lead. CNN, 4 September. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/bush.letter/.

  • Bush, G.W. 2002b. Remarks at a luncheon for representative Anne M. Northup in Louisville. September 6, 2002. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 38: 1498.

  • Bush, G.W. 2003. President George W. Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference, 6 March. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html.

  • Crosswhite, J. 1996. Rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. 1959. Decision by debate: A re-examination. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45: 282–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D. 1970. Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations and its uses. Speech Monographs 37: 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehninger, D., and W. Brockriede. 1966. Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, E., S. Llano, G.R. Mitchell, C.E. Morrison, J. Rief, and C. Woods. 2007. Debate as a weapon of mass destruction. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies 4: 222–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, T.B. 1993. Norms of rhetorical culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S., and C.L. Griffin. 1995. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M.A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, G.T. 1993. A “new rhetoric” for a “new dialectic”: Prolegomena to a responsible public argument. Argumentation 7: 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graff, G. 2003. Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtlosser, P., and F.H. van Eemeren. 1998a. Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques, ed. J.F. Klumpp, 51–56. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtlosser, P., and F.H. van Eemeren. 1998b. Rhetorical ways of managing disagreement: Justifying reconstructions of confrontation. In Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques, ed. J.F. Klumpp, 57–62. Annandale VA: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, H.W. 1965. Some reflections on argumentation. In Philosophy, rhetoric and argumentation, ed. M. Natanson and H.W. Johnstone, 1–9. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, C. 2004. Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The selling of the Iraq war. International Security 29: 5–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W.W., and G.R. Mitchell. 2006. Preventive force: Untangling the discourse. In Hitting first: Preventive force in US security strategy, ed. W.W. Keller and G.R. Mitchell, 239–263. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klumpp, J.F. 2006. Facts, truth and Iraq: A call to stewardship of democratic argument. In Engaging argument, ed. P. Riley, 1–17. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, M. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14: 251–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makau, J.M., and D.L. Marty. 2001. Cooperative argumentation: A model for deliberative community. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, M. 2001. Meet your footnote: Douglas Ehninger. American Communication Journal 5. http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol5/iss1/ehninger.htm.

  • Meiland, J. 1989. Argument as inquiry and argument as persuasion. Argumentation 3: 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G.R. 2006. Team B intelligence coups. Quarterly Journal of Speech 92: 144–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G.R. 2008. Rhetoric in international relations: More than “cheap talk. In The Sage handbook of rhetoric, ed. J.A. Aune and A. Lunsford, 247–263. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morganthau, H. 1948. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natanson, M. 1965. The claims of immediacy. In Philosophy, rhetoric and argumentation, ed. M. Natanson and H.W. Johnstone, 10–19. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, P.R., and M.L.R. Smith. 2005. Missing the plot? Intelligence and discourse failure. Orbis 49: 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, K.M. 2006. The epideictic lens: The unrealized potential of existing argumentation theory to explain the Bush administration’s presentation of war with Iraq. In Engaging argument, ed. P. Riley, 18–28. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. 2006. Deliberate before striking first? In Hitting first: Preventive force in US security strategy, ed. W.W. Keller and G.R. Mitchell, 115–136. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans: Wilkinson, J., and P. Weaver). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Prados, J. 2005. Iraq: When was the die cast? Tom paine commentary, 3 May. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iraq_when_was_the_die_cast.php.

  • Regan, T. 2003. Report: Bush, blair decided to go to war months before UN meetings. Christian Science Monitor, February 3.

  • Risse, T. 2000. Let’s argue! Communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54: 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands, P. 2005. Lawless world: America and the making and breaking of global rules from FDR’s atlantic charter to George W. Bush’s illegal war. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunday Times (Britain). 2005. The secret downing street memos, 1 May. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece.

  • Tannen, D. 1998. The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. 1988. The uses of argument, 9th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. 2005. Report to the President. http://www.wmd.gov/report/.

  • United States Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Review of the pre-Iraqi war activities of the office of the under secretary of defense for policy. http://www.dodig.mil/fo/Foia/pre-iraqi.htm.

  • United States Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence. 2004. Report on the US intelligence community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. www.intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport.pdf.

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, Chr Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002a. Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam: SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002b. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 131–160. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2003. Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and F.S. Henkemans, 289–292. Amsterdam: SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2006a. Preface. Argumentation 20: 377–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2006b. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20: 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rees, M.A. 2006. Strategic maneuvering with dissociation. Argumentation 20: 473–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. 1979. Some questions about Toulmin’s view of argument fields. In Proceedings of the summer conference on argumentation, ed. J. Rhodes, and S. Newell, 348–400. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, B. 2004. Woodward shares war secrets, 60 minutes transcript, 18 April. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes.

  • Zarefsky, D. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20: 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh, Cathedral of Learning 1117, 4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Gordon R. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Gordon R. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon R. Mitchell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitchell, G.R. Higher-Order Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentation. Argumentation 24, 319–335 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9178-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9178-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation