Outsourced voices and relational footing: Can silence be an argument?
Abstract
I propose an interactional approach to argumentation among natural agents in everyday life. I particularly focus on epistemic subjects who form a stable, affective, and simultaneously conflictive dyadic relationship. Although the microsocial sphere is populated with multiple dyadic relationships under these conditions, I will take a spousal dyad as an example. I will argue that, faced with persistent disagreement, these dyads tend frequently to adopt an unreflective argumentative optimism that includes both the stereotyped use of verbalizations and relationally organized silences. The automation of these roles establishes rigid argumentative couplings that significantly undermine the exercise of the dyad's epistemic autonomy. Argumentation becomes part of the conflict itself, exacerbating it, as it fosters rapid and vicious maneuvers. In contrast, cultivating argumentative skills that enhance reasonableness is a condition for the possibility of navigating disagreement with a reflective attitude about the costs, dangers, and advantages of argumentation. Such virtuosity defines a "good arguer" and thrives precisely in the silent intervals that separate one discursive cycle from another.References
Calveiro, P. (2005). Familia y Poder. Buenos Aires: Ed. Araucaria.
Cohen, D. (2019). No argument is an island: Argumentation between arguments. In
Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of
Argumentation, eds. B. Garssen, D. God-den, G. R. Mitchell and J. H. M. Wagemans, 210-
Amsterdam: Sic Sac.
Cohen, D. (2022) El silencio Injusto en la argumentación: Virtudes y Vicios de quienes
argumentan. En Injusticias Epistémicas (De Brasi y Santibañez Eds). Lima: Palestra
editores.
Coria, C. (1996). Las negociaciones nuestras de cada día. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Christiansen, M. (2019). Violencia interpersonal y arrogancia neutralista. Un abordaje ético-
epistemológico sobre la argumentación y la objetividad. Revista Internacional
Interdisciplinar INTERthesis, 16(1), 91-107.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5007/1807- 1384.2019v16n1p91
_Christiansen, M. (2020) Parasitismo argumental. El punto muerto de la deliberación.
Oxímora. Revista internacional de ética y política. 16. 50-62
doi:10.1344/oxi.2020.i16.29689.
_Christiansen, M. (2021). La ecología epistémica del desacuerdo profundo: un análisis
reflexivo sobre la discusión interpersonal. Griot Revista De Filosofia, 21(2), 376-394.
https://doi.org/10.31977/grirfi.v21i2.2323
_Christiansen, M. L. (2023). Instrumentalismo Argumental y Conflicto Epistémico. Costos,
Ganancias y Riesgos de las Discusiones Entre Íntimos. European Scientific Journal,
ESJ, 19(35), 160. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2023.v19n35p160
Furedy, Frank. (2004) Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age. London
Routledge.
Gascón, J.A. (2020). “Las Motivaciones en la Argumentación”. En C. Santibáñez (ED.)
Emociones, Argumentación y Argumentos Lima: Palestra. 53-74
Gilbert, M. A. (2010). Argumentación multimodal. In F. Leal Carretero, C. González Ramírez, &
V. Favila Vega (Eds.), Introducción a la argumentación (73-90). Guadalajara: Editorial
Universitaria.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Illouz, E. (2010) La Salvación del Alma Moderna. Terapia, Emociones y la Cultura de la
Autoayuda. Barcelona: Editorial Katz.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3). 480-498.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. MIT Press.
Paglieri, F. (2009). Ruinous Arguments: Escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing.
OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 121.
Paglieri, F. & Castelfranchi, C. (2010) Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of
argumentation, Argument and Computation, 1:1, 71-91, DOI: 10.1080/19462160903494584
Pereda, C. (1994). Vértigos argumentales. Una ética de la disputa. Barcelona: Anthropos &
UAM-Iztapalapa.
Pereda, C. (1996). ¿Qué es un buen argumento? Theoria. Segunda Época, 11(25), San
Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco, 7-20.
Pereda, C. (1999). Crítica de la razón arrogante. México: Taurus-Alfaguara.
Popper, K. (1985). La lógica de la investigación científica (7a. ed.). Madrid: TECNOS.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
