REFORMA LABORAL

Parties involved in an argumentative exchange will attempt “to exploit the opportunities afforded by the dialectical situation” in order to steer the discussion rhetorically to their advantage (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 1999, p. 482). Conceived in this manner, strategic manoeuvring serves as a mechanism for balancing the attainment of rhetorical aims against the backdrop of complying with the standards of reasonableness.29 Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2003) maintain that the simultaneous pursuit of both aims creates tension. Therefore, strategic manoeuvring is a reconciliatory mechanism “directed at diminishing the potential tension between pursuing at the same time a dialectical as well as a rhetorical aim” (p. 392).

Each discussion stage has both a dialectical aim and a rhetorical counterpart. For example, in the confrontation stage, the dialectical aim is to formulate a reasonable definition of the difference of opinion. Once formulated, this opens up a set of possibilities related to presenting the confrontation in the most effective way, i.e. a

rhetorical aim (van Eemeren, 2013). While dialectical aims are grounded in the normative

29_{Pragma-dialecticians prefer the term effectiveness rather than persuasiveness, because the latter only}

pertains to the rhetorical effectiveness of argumentative moves advanced in the argumentation stage, while the former encompasses the rhetorical effect of all the stages of critical discussion (van Eemeren, 2013).

62

standards (rules) of critical discussion, rhetorical aims are realized by making expedient choices concerning the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring: topical potential,

adaptation to audience, and presentational devices. As such, the analysis of strategic manoeuvring reveals how the opportunities available at a certain dialectical stage are exploited to favour the protagonists’ interests (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 1999).

Topical potential represents the repertoire of options (topoi or loci) that are available at a certain discussion stage and which form the basis for selecting moves (van Eemeren, 2010).30 Topical potential reflects the perspective, angle, or viewpoint that the arguer takes regarding the content of her discourse (ibid.). In the confrontation stage, topical potential amounts to making the most effective choices among the potential issues for discussion, i.e. exploiting and restricting the ‘disagreement space’ (ibid.). This means that the confrontation is defined in terms of the arguer’s preferences which are attained, for example, by choosing a topic that she finds it easier to handle or by evading the burden of giving an explicit definition of the disagreement.

In the opening stage, the arguer aims to create a broad ‘zone of agreement’ that represents the most advantageous material and procedural starting points for the discussion. To this end, the arguer aims to elicit helpful concessions or to secure agreement through

reference to implicitly assumed endoxa.31 In the argumentation stage, the arguer selects the appropriate argument schemes (causal, symptomatic, comparison schemes) that best suit her line of defence or attack. Finally, in the concluding stage, topical potential

30_{A more detailed discussion of the relation between topoi, loci and topical potential is presented in Section}

4.2, below.

31 _{Endoxa are commonly held views, beliefs and values that are culture-specific (van Eemeren, 2010).}

63

amounts to determining the ‘scope of conclusiveness’ related to the outcome of the discussion by showing, for example, the implications of the positive consequences of accepting her line of argument, or capitalising on it (van Eemeren, 2010, Ch. 4).

The second aspect of strategic manoeuvring is adapting the arguer’s moves to meet audience preferences and frames of reference. Adaptation to the audience requires that moves connect with the views and perspectives that are most agreeable to the audience, so that these moves attain the widest agreement. In the confrontation stage, the arguer aims to avoid mentioning contradictions or to limit disagreement to a non-mixed

difference in order to secure communion.32 One strategy is to present conflict over values as being conflict over facts, because facts are easier to handle. In the opening stage, adaptation to the audience entails referring to widely-shared values and value hierarchies that pertain to the respective audience. The objective is to establish material and

procedural starting points that the audience is willing to accept or to appeal to those that are already part of the audience’s value systems and beliefs, i.e. exploiting endoxa. Reference to shared background knowledge and values, as well as adopting the other party’s arguments (conciliatio) to support one’s position, creates empathy with the audience since the stated premises are already part of the audience’s or the other party’s commitments and hence need no justification. Similarly, in the argumentation stage, the arguer may refer to arguments that conform with the audience’s interests or appeal to sources that the audience respect and trust. In the conclusion stage, the arguer may

32_{A non-mixed difference of opinion is an argumentative confrontation in which one party advances a}

standpoint and the same party has the obligation to defend it. In contrast, in a mixed difference of opinion, two parties advance contradictory standpoints and both have the obligation to defend their standpoints (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992).

64

emphasize the joint responsibility of accepting her standpoints and/or avoid mentioning consequences that the audience do not favour (van Eemeren, 2010, Ch. 4).

For optimal rhetorical effect, arguments that are reframed to meet audience preferences must be presented in such a way as to induce acceptance. This involves exploiting a range of presentational devices. Presentational devices, such as rhetorical questions,

metonymies and metaphors, serve “the purpose of framing the argumentative move that is made in such a way that it introduces a particular perspective” (ibid., p.126). The three aspects of strategic manoeuvring are realized in every stage of critical discussion, where the outcome of maintaining a balance between dialectical and rhetorical (effectiveness) aims leads to winning the discussion in a reasonable way.

However, in certain instances of actual argumentative practice, this tension is not resolved and the rhetorical aim is achieved at the expense of abiding by the rules of critical

discussion. In such cases, as van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2003) state, the “commitment to the critical ideal may be neglected due to assiduity to win the other party over to one’s own side” (p. 394). Due to this imbalance, strategic manoeuvring can derail when an argumentative move is characterised as fallacious.