Abstract
Twenty-five years ago, field theory was among the most contested issues in argumentation studies. Today, the situation is very different. In fact, field theory has almost disappeared from disciplinary debates, a development which might suggest that the concept is not a useful aspect of argumentation theory. In contrast, I argue that while field studies are rarely useful, field theory provides an essential underpinning to any close analysis of an argumentative controversy. I then argue that the conflicting approaches to argument fields were in fact not inconsistent, but instead reflected different aspects of field practices. A coherent approach to field theory can be developed by considering the way that all aspects of argumentative practice develop based on the purposes of arguers in an argumentative context. I then extend that position to argue that a justifiable theory of argumentation, which makes claims beyond the descriptive, must have at its core an analysis of the way that purpose constrains argumentation practice. In this view, the ultimate justification of principles found in a prescriptive or evaluative theory of argument must be in the way those principles fulfill practical problem-solving purposes related to the epistemic function of argument.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An example indicating this point can be found in the publishing history of the textbook co-authored by Toulmin himself, An Introduction to Reasoning (Toulmin et al. 1984), which includes analyses of several fields, including the law. It is instructive, that the most recent edition of the text was originally published in 1984 (although it has been reprinted more recently). Clearly, the trend in recent texts has been away from detailed analyses of particular fields and instead has focused on the development of a general theory of argument.
It is instructive that Toulmin focuses on the descriptive and evaluative dimensions of field studies, as opposed to building a field theory itself. Rather than building an overarching theory of fields, he develops whatever field principle is relevant to the point he is making about argumentation in any given instance. In that way, Toulmin’s application of what I label “field theory” is broadly consistent with the argument developed here. Toulmin’s emphasis on different defining characteristics of fields can be read as supporting the complementary nature of the various approaches to field theory.
For examples of this research see van Eemeren et al. 1996, pp. 310–311.
References
Avon, R., and R. Hirokawa. 2002. The rhetorical limits of the precautionary principle as a basis for argumentation. In Arguing Communication & Culture, Volume One, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 153–160. Washington: National Communication Association.
Benoit, P.J. 1988. A case for triangulation in argument research. Journal of the American Forensic Association 25: 31–42.
Bertea, S. 2003. Legal Argumentation Theory and the Concept of the Law. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F.S. Henkemans, 105–110. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brockriede, W. 1972. Arguers as lovers. Philosophy and Rhetoric 5: 1–11.
Foss, S.K., and C.L. Griffin. 1995. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18.
Gearhart, S.M. 1979. The womanization of rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2: 195–201.
Gilbert, M.A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Godden, D.M. 2003. On Toulmin’s fields and Wittgenstein’s later views on logic. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F.S. Henkemans, 369–375. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
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: 214–227.
Gore, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth. Emmaus: Rodale.
Gronbeck, B.E. 1981. Sociocultural notions of argument fields: A primer. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 1–20. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Hanson, J. 1989. Argument fields, logical types, and shared purposes. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. B.E. Gronbeck, 275–285. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Herrick, J.A. 2004. Argumentation: Understanding and shaping arguments. Strata, State College, PA.
Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klumpp, J.F. 1981. A Dramatistic Approach to Fields. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 44–55. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Kneupper, C.W. 1981. Argument fields: Some social constructivist observations. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 80–87. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Makau, J.M. 1990. Reasoning and communication. Belmont: Wadsworth.
McKerrow, R.E. 1980. Argument communities: A quest for distinctions. In Proceedings of the summer conference on argumentation, eds. J. Rhodes and S. Newell, 214–227. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
McKerrow, R.E. 1986. Case studies in field theory: An introduction. Journal of the American Forensic Association 22: 185–186.
McKerrow, R.E. 1990. Argument communities. In Perspectives on argumentation: essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, eds. R. Trapp and J. Scheutz, 27–40. Waveland: Prospect Heights.
Mill, J.S. 1963. The six great humanistic essays. New York: Washington Square.
Prosie T.O., J.P. Mills, and G.R. Miller. 1996. Fields as arenas of practical discursive struggle: Argument fields and Pierre Bordieu’s theory of social practice. Journal of the American Forensic Association 32: 111–128.
Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rowland, R.C. 1981. Argument Fields. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 56–79. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Rowland, R.C. 1982. The influence of purpose on fields of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 228–245.
Rowland, R.C. 1995. In defense of rational argument: A pragmatic justification of argumentation theory and response to the postmodern critique. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 350–364.
Schwarze, S. 2002. Rhetorical traction: Definitions and institutional arguments in judicial opinions about wilderness areas. Argumentation and Advocacy 38: 131–150.
Thomas, D.E. 1997. Deconstruction and rationality: A response to Rowland, or postmodernism 101. Philosophy and Rhetoric 30: 70–81.
Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toulmin, S.E. 1953. An examination of the place of reason in ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S.E. 1972. Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning, (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, F.S. Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenzel, J.W. 1982. On fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 204–213.
Willard, C.A. 1981. Field theory: A cartesian meditation. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 21–43. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Zarefsky, D. 1982. Persistent Questions in the Theory of Argument Fields. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 191–203.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rowland, R.C. Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification. Argumentation 22, 235–250 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9062-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9062-y