Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence

Informal Logic 16 (2) (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This essay begins with a critique of the Critical-Logical model dominant in contemporary argumentation theory. The concerns raised stem primarily from considerations brought by several feminist thinkers including Carol Gilligan, Karen Warren, Deborah Tannen and, most especially, Andrea Nye. It is argued that, in light of these considerations, and concerns of essentialism or non-essentialism notwithstanding, that the Critical-Logical model is liable to dis-enfranchise a significant part of the population with regard to modes and styles of reasoning. The solution is found in coalescent reasoning, an approach to argumentation that focuses on finding agreement rather than emphasizing disagreement and criticism



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Coalescent argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.


Added to PP

34 (#445,975)

6 months
5 (#544,079)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?