Strategic disagreements and antagonistic conflict dynamics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2022.66.25Keywords:
Strategic disagreements, Parliamentary debates, Antagonistic conflict dynamics, Linguistic corpora, Strategic advantagesAbstract
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, to study strategic disagreements, i.e., those situations in which one of the parties uses an expression that allows it to restructure the debate and, in this way, obtain some strategic advantage to advance its political agenda. The paper examines this type of disagreement in a specific context: the parliamentary debates in the Spanish Congress of Deputies during the VIII Legislature (2004-2008). Second, to show that strategic disagreements constitute antagonistic conflict dynamics, i.e., situations in which one or both parties are denied a morally adequate treatment of their points of view. In this way, strategic disagreements prevent the development of the dynamics necessary to manage the conflict in a cooperative way.
Downloads
References
Adams, D. M. (2005). Knowing when Disagreements are Deep. Informal Logic, 25(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1045
Almagro, M. y Villanueva, N. (2021). Polarización y tecnologías de la información: radicales vs. extremistas. Dilemata. Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas, 34, 51-69.
Augoustinos, M. y Every, D. (2007). Contemporary racist discourse: Taboos against racism and racist accusations. En: V. Weatherall, B. M. Watson y C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology (pp. 233-254). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230206168_10
Bordonaba-Plou, D. (2019). Polarización como impermeabilidad: Cuando las razones ajenas no importan. Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales, 66, 295-309. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2019000300295
Ceva, E. (2016). Interactive Justice. A Proceduralist Approach to Value Conflict in Politics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560052
Cheng, J. E. (2015). Islamophobia, Muslimophobia or racism? Parliamentary discourses on Islam and Muslims in debates on the minaret ban in Switzerland. Discourse & Society, 26(5), 562-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515581157
Davis, J. K. (2015). Faultless Disagreement, Cognitive Command, and Epistemic Peers. Synthese, 192, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0543-x
De Cruz, H. y De Smedt, J. (2013). The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice. The case of Homo Floresiensis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, part A 44(2), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.02.002
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. y Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. The American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
Fogelin, R. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25(1), 3-11. [Original, 1985, Informal Logic, 7(1), 3-11]. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1040
Gerlsbeck, F. (2016). What is Democratic Reliability? Epistemic Theories of Democracy and the Problem of Reasonable Disagreement. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(2): 218-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2015.1129489
Jurafsky, D. y Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing. An Introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall.
Kappel, K. (2012). The Problem of Deep Disagreement. Discipline Filosofiche, 22(2), 7-25.
Kappel, K. (2017). Fact-dependent policy disagreements and political legitimacy. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9770-1
Kölbel, M. (2004). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00081.x
Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
Levitsky, S. y Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
Lynch, M. P. (2010). Epistemic circularity and epistemic disagreement. En: A. Haddock, A. Millar y D. Pritchard (Eds.), Social epistemology (pp. 262-277). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.003.0013 PMid:22396865 PMCid:PMC3295033
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment-sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001
McMahon, C. (2009). Reasonable Disagreement. A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596742
Osorio, J. y Villanueva, N. (2019). Expressivism and crossed disagreements. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 86, 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246119000092
Pančur, A. y Šorn, M. (2016). Smart big data: Use of Slovenian parliamentary papers in digital history. Contributions to Contemporary History, 56(3), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.51663/pnz.56.3.09
Plunkett D. y Sundell T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosopher's Imprint, 13(23), 1-37.
Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S. y Gröndlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136
Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9572-6
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711
Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Knowledge in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 2, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.06dij
Van Dijk, T. A. (2010). Political identities in parliamentary debates. En: C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 29-56). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.03dij
Yeager, G. M. (1979). The Club de la Unión and kinship: Social aspects of political obstructionism in the Chilean Senate, 1920-1924. The Americas, 35(4), 539-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/981022
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
