Soc. Article

Abstract

  • Argumentation can lead to unwanted belief changes, making individuals vulnerable.

  • Belief involuntarism asserts that argument is inherently adversarial.

  • Proposes moving from adversariality to a vulnerability-centric view of argument.

Key Concepts

  • Adversarial Argument: The theory suggesting that argument interactions are fundamentally opposing due to conflicting beliefs.

  • Belief Involuntarism: The belief that individuals do not have direct control over their beliefs, influencing the adversarial nature of arguments.

  • Vulnerability: The exposure to risks and opportunities during arguments for both arguers and audiences.

Introduction

  • Traditional theories view adversariality as rooted in conflicting positions.

  • Casey's argument highlights structural adversariality based on lack of control over beliefs.

  • The critique suggests exploring intent, agency, and benefits in argumentation.

Dimensions of Vulnerability

  • Vulnerability encompasses not only risks but also strengths and opportunities in argument.

  • Consideration of audience agency and diversity of arguer intentions helps reshape the understanding of argument interactions.

Casey's Position on Adversariality

  • Arguers inherently influence audience beliefs, which creates vulnerability.

  • Casey's structural adversariality indicates all arguments are adversarial in some way.

  • Critics argue that this view oversimplifies the complexities of argument relationships.

Invitational Rhetoric

  • Proposes a non-adversarial approach to argumentation focused on understanding rather than persuasion.

  • Emphasizes equal participation and self-determination for both arguments and audiences.

Vulnerability in Argumentation

  • Situational Vulnerability: Context-specific vulnerabilities influenced by personal and societal factors.

  • Ontological Vulnerability: The universal, inherent vulnerability tied to human existence and relationships.

Critique of Adversariality Paradigm

  • Understanding argument dynamics in terms of vulnerabilities provides a more nuanced view.

  • Arguments can potentially be both adversarial and collaborative, depending on context.

Conclusion

  • Recognizing the multifaceted nature of vulnerabilities can lead to a fuller understanding of argumentation.

  • Through this lens, the impact of adversarial and non-adversarial interactions is understood better.