I found the feminist theory of understanding argumentation particularly interesting because although, as they said, there are many strains of feminist theory, they all center around how certain marginalized groups are understood within argumentation. The book talks about how systems of power make arguments coming from certain people more appealing than others regardless of the information contained in the argument. This is clear by the fact that women get interrupted more often than men do. Distinctions of class and race also play roles in argumentation in that people of lower classes and/or people of color have to make stronger arguments to get the same adherence. These ideas go against the traditional thought that if an argument is sound and coherent, then it should not matter who delivers it or in what situation it is delivered. This traditional notion is, in fact, inconsistent with reality; people have preconceived notions of both the intended audience of the argument and of the person delivering the argument. These preconceptions are part of the environment that should be noted and must be navigated by all participants on either side of any given argument. Identical arguments delivered by different people will not be received identically because of unconscious biases towards each of the speakers. While the femenisms that analyze argumentation focuses on marginalized groups, I would add that, at some point or another, everyone experiences argumentative marginalization. This could come about from race and gender, but it could also stem from class or rank positions in the sphere of argumentation, or relative age between the arguer and the decision makers. While it is an appealing thought that the right argument can have an impact regardless of who delivers, it is not that simple. Every deliverer brings with them notions that will influence how their argument is received that is not necessarily related to what they actually have to argue.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I agree with your summary and main idea that femist theory focuses on marginalized groups, however I think it also emphasizes the ‘voices’ that are understood in society, and ultimately neglected. I think this directly connects to the idea of proofs, particularly ethos. Ethos is defined as “the extent to which people are inclined to go along with an argument because of who expresses it. In contemporary research, ethos is seen as part of credibility.” (p. 23). What drew me to this connection was your point about women being interrupted more than men, because this is not only a question of feminst theory, but ethos as well. In this case, men are questioning the ethos of the women and assuming they are more knowledgeable, credible, and trustworthy than them. To further build on your points, middle and upper class men continue to disregard the ‘voices’ and credibility of lower economic groups and minorities. Although this marginalization may not always be as evident as talking over someone, it is clear in your example about two people delivering the same speech. In this case, they will likely be interpreted differently because of their ethos, regarding their different backgrounds and credibility levels. This in turn determines how the marginalized groups are actually understood because this identification of their background can change many different aspects of an argument and the arguers perceived voice.
ReplyDeleteYour reflection of the feminist theory of understanding argumentation was very well stated, and I appreciated how you expanded upon the concept of marginalized speakers by, not only talking about women, but different races and classes.
ReplyDeleteI think I would add that, especially in this day in age, the political party affiliation of the speaker (and audience) really plays a big role in how someone interprets an argument. For example, an audience member who leans far right may not trust the argument of someone who leans far left, regardless of the facts and support that they may present (ex. issues surrounding global warming).
I'd also like to touch on your line, "I would add that, at some point or another, everyone experiences argumentative marginalization." I think you bring about an amazing point. Too often, we think that minority (race, gender, etc) voices and arguments are not heard. However, I’d argue that they are often heard by other minorities, but not necessarily the "people of power" in society. Stereotypically, this would be white men. However, I think that white men may face problems while presenting their arguments to minorities. This ties back to the concept of worldviews and individual truths. What is "true" or "factual" to one group, may not be to another. That being said, I'd agree with you that it is very difficult for an argument, no matter how well crafted, to be taken correctly, or in the desired way, in every time.
The topic presented here is really interesting: that the same argument made by two different people and can be received so differently depending on who is delivering the argument. It is, of course, certainly true that this happens and I would say it mostly relates to the perceived authority of the speaker. Due to the biases of many people, conscious or not, create this dynamic. This bias can be applied to all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. I appreciated that you mentioned class as well as race and gender because I think that someone that looks filthy and is wearing dirty clothes certainly will not be taken as seriously as someone wearing formal clothes. Even if their argument is more sound. I have no doubt it is the case that everyone experiences this discrimination at times when presenting an argument, whether it be a result of their youth, race, class, appearance, gender, or relation to the topic. I also have no doubt that some groups experience this discrimination far more than others.
ReplyDelete