Hanrieder, The False Promise of the Better Argument

Introduction

• Author: Tine Hanrieder, Geschwister-Scholl-Institut for Political Science, University of Munich

• Article discusses effective argumentation in international politics as primarily a matter of persuasion.

• Critiques the notion that the "better argument" leads to legitimate normative change through Habermas's framework.

The Concept of Argumentation

• Effective argumentation is often misrepresented as solely based on persuasion through the "better argument."

• Habermas's Theory: Views the connection between normative and empirical aspects of argumentation as problematic and self-defeating.

• The construct of better arguments relies heavily on subjective criteria of what constitutes a better argument.

Normative and Empirical Fallout

• The dynamic of moral discourse has shifted from an open contestation paradigm to ensuring compliance with pre-existing norms.

• This poses a challenge for scholars analyzing true persuasion as a concept that cannot be genuinely observed or measured.

Methodological Dilemma

• Examines difficulties in understanding genuine persuasion empirically.

• Suggests that objective criteria of assessing arguments often mask deeper moral issues.

• Two key methodological approaches arise: positivist reification and critical approaches to identifying persuasion.

• These approaches may overlook non-rational forms of argumentation.

Agency-Theoretical Insights

• Arguments in international relations should reflect authentic persuasion rather than mere compliance.

• Tine Hanrieder asserts that actual motivational change is not crucial for effective argumentation, challenging traditional views of Habermas.

• True Belief Change: Often seen as essential in Habermasian thought, yet may not be necessary for persuasive effectiveness.

The Role of Habermas

• Challenges the empirical applicability of Habermas’s theories to norm construction in international relations.

• Critiques suggest that Habermasian discourse has led to a compliance mechanism rather than fostering true normative change.

Responses to the Normative–Empirical Dilemma

• Scholars must engage either in direct reification of norms or take a critical stance without denying the presence of the norms.

• Ongoing debates highlight the conflict between maintaining a causal understanding of persuasion and recognizing the potential for norms to be in flux.

Persuasion vs. Coercion

• The article addresses the dichotomy between genuine persuasion and coercive practices in international dialogue.

• Positions that rely solely on the empirical outcomes of arguments risk undervaluing the complexities of discourse.

Beyond False Promises

• The shift in focus from authentic persuasion to effective compliance undermines the original emancipatory intentions of the arguing concept.

Pragmatic Abstention from the Better Argument

• Advocates for a pragmatic approach that acknowledges the realities of normative contestation without strictly adhering to the notion of a singular "better argument."

• Encourages recognizing the role of emotions, cultural narratives, and other non-rational factors within argumentative processes.

Conclusion

• A call for a new understanding of moral agreement in international politics as a performance-based achievement, rather than strictly reasoned consensus.

• Future research should incorporate a richer, practice-centered appreciation of norms, allowing for more nuanced insights into international relations.