Abstract
This essay examines the Brazilian deforestation debate to explicate the beginnings of a post-modern theory of argumentation. Modernist argumentation reflects two distinct approaches, found in the deforestation controversy. The first approach, ‘universal minimilization,’ presumes that the survival of humanity is sufficient grounds upon which to base argument. The alternative, ‘strategic manipulation,’ results in argument being employed as a technical device to advance one's interest. In place of the modernist approach, we offer an ecocentric theory of argumentation. This conception calls for individuals to set aside differences in values to sustain humanity but at the same time to be sensitive to differences in costs and benefits that accrue from common efforts to persons differently situated. Additionally, this view operates with a tacit working assumption that environmental questions are not discrete entities to be evaluated separately. Rather, people must act collectively on a range of interconnected issues to ensure survival.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barthes, R.: 1983,Mythologies, trans Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.
Baudrillard, J.: 1981,For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, Trans. Charles Levin. St. Louis, MO: Telos Press.
Bitzer, L.: 1970, “Rhetoric and Public Knowledge.”Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Literature, Ed. Don M. Burks. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University press.
Bookchin, M.: 1987,The Modern Crisis, New York: Black Rose Books.
Brooke, J.: 1990, “Defender of Rain Forest is Named Secretary of Environment in Brazil,”The New York Times 6 March 1990: C5.
Burke, K.: 1950, 1969,A Rhetoric of Motives, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Caldwell, L. K.: 1985,U.S. Interests and the Global Environment, Iowa: The Stanley Foundaiton Muscutine.
Charland, M.: 1990, “Rehabilitating Rhetoric: Confronting Blindspots in Discourse and Social Theory,”Communication,11(4), 253–264.
Cowell,A.: 1990,The Decade of Destruction, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Devall, B. And G. Sessions: 1985,Deep Ecology, Salt Lake City: G.M. Smith.
Drengson, A. R.: 1989,Beyond Environmental Crisis: From Technocrat to Planetary Person, New York: P. Lang.
Ehninger, D.: 1970, “Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its Limitations and Its Uses,”Speech Monographs,37, 101–110.
Ehrlich, R. and A. H. Ehrlich: 1981,Extinction:The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species, New York: Random House.
Fisher, W. R.: 1984, “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm,”Communication Monographs,51, 1–22.
Gilliam, H.: 1985, “Useful Subversion,”Sierra July–August, 72-74.
Goodnight, G. T.: 1982, “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation,”Journal of the American Forensic Association 18(.4), 214–227.
Habermas, J.: 1976, 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans, Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hariman, R.: 1991, “Critical Rhetoric and Postmodern Theory,”Quarterly Journal of Speech,77, 67–70.
Lange, J.: 1990, “Refusal to Compromise: The Case of Earth First!” Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 473–494.
Leff, M. And A. Sachs, 1990, “Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text,”Western Journal of Speech Communication,54, 252–273.
McCloskey, M.: 1989, “No Special Revelations,”Sierra, January–February, 160-165.
McGee, M. C.: 1974, Edmund Burke's Beautiful Lie: An Exploraiton of the Relationship Between Rhetoric and Social Theory. Diss. Univeersity of Iowa.
McGee, M. C.: 1980, “The Origins of ‘Liberty’: A Feminization of Power,”Communication Monographs,47, 23–44.
McKerrow, R.: 1989, “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis,”Communication Monographs,56, 91–111.
McKibben, B.: 1989,The End of Nature, New York: Random House.
Mill, J. S.: 1959, “On Liberty” and “Representative Government.”Three Essays, Ed. Richard Wolheim, Oxford: Oxford University Press, rpt. 1987.
Moore, G. E.: 1903,Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press, rpt. 1976.
Muir, S.A. 1991, “Identifying With Nature: Communities of Argument and the Office of the Critic,” Eastern Communication Association. Pittsburgh.
Ohmae, K.: 1990,The Borderless World, New York: Harper Business.
Paehlke, R.: 1988, “Democracy, Bureaucracy and Environmentalism,”Environmental Ethics 10, 291–308.
Paehlke, R. C.: 1989,Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pasca, T. M. 1988, “The Politics of Tropical Deforestation,”American Forests. Nov./Dec., 21-24.
Perelman, C. And Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: 1969,The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
PERC Reports, v 7, #3 (September 1989).
Political Economy Research Center, Pamphlet, 502 South 19th Avenue, Suite 211, Bozeman, Montana 59715.
Plotkin, M.: 1987, “Treasures Among the Trees,”Multinational Monitor,9, 21.
Postel, S.: 1988, “Global View of a Tropical Disaster,”American Forests. Nov./Dec., 25-29.
Prance, G.: 1990, “Rainforested Regions of Latin America,”Lessons of the Rainforest, Ed. Suzanne Head and Robert Heinzman, San Francisco: Sierra Books.
Revkin, A.: 1990,The Burning Season, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shabecoff, P.: 1990, “Loss of Tropical Forests is Found Much Worse Than Was Thought,”The New York Times 8 June 1990: 1.
Simon, J. L. and Kahn.: 1984,The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000, New York: B. Blackwell.
“Tropical Forests: A Plan for Action,” Editorial,The Ecologist 5 April 1987, 129-133.
Wallace, K. R.: 1963, “The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 49, 239–49.
Wood, W. B., G. J. Demko, and P. Mofson: 1989, “Ecopolitics in the Global Greenhouse,”Environment,31.(7), 12–34.
World Commission on environment and Development, 1987,Our Common Future, New York: Oxford University Press.
Young, J.: 1990,Sustaining the Earth, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Panetta, E.M., Condit, C.M. Ecocentrism and argumentative competence: Roots of a postmodern argument theory from the brazilian deforestation debate. Argumentation 9, 203–223 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733109
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733109