Arguers as Lovers

Wayne Brockriede on "genuine" argument

Arguers as Lovers: Orientations Toward Arguing

"No philosophical purpose is served when a point of view prevails only because its author has silenced criticism of it through the use of techniques that are effective because they are concealed from the critics" Henry W. Johnstone

the arguer as "rapist"

bulletDepersonalizes the other
bulletreliance on verbal aggressiveness, (name calling, ad hominems, attacking the other person’s self-concept
bulletuse of force, authority, sanctions
bulletreliance on threats, ultimatums
bulletexample poor litigants vs. large corporations

the arguer as "seducer"

bulletRelies on harm, beguilement, trickery
bulletCreates an illusion of choice
bulletUtilizes ingratiation strategies
bulletResorts to deception
bulletRelies on illicit reasoning (fallacies in reasoning, withholding evidence, quoting out of context, misrepresenting evidence)

"rapists" and "seducers"
as arguers

bulletDisplays disregard for the other person
bulletViews other as an "object" or "target" rather than as a person
bulletEmphasizes success, de-emphasizes relationships
bulletUnwilling to expose oneself to the risk of change
bulletAdopts only one perspective on an issue--one’s own

Arguers as "lovers"

bulletRegards other as an equal, stresses power parity
bulletValues the relationship over the outcome
bulletEmphasizes cooperation, not competition
bulletValues shared-decision-making, choice-making
bulletWilling to risk values, self-esteem by engaging in argument

approaches to arguing

bulletThe categories aren’t mutually exclusive, they are a matter of degree
bulletThe categories are situational, contextual
bulletA person can change his or her orientation to arguing

orientations toward arguments
and arguing

bulletTraditional adversarial view of argument
bulletcompetitive, win-lose orientation, zero-sum game
bulletdialectical perspective (opposition)
bulletPseudo-argument, argument as a pretext for ad hominems
bulletCooperative view of argument
bulletmutually shared goals
bulletargument as a form of consensual validation
bulletepistemic function of argument