Various Forms of Expressing Differences of Opinion
Keywords:
Chantal Mouffe, differences of opinion, antagonism, deliberation, relativism, agonismAbstract
Although previous research has addressed the characteristics of debates and argumentation I argue there is a need to expand the framework for analysing the forms of such oral activities, particularly regarding expressions of differences in opinion. Commonly applied analytical tools generally recognize just two forms, antagonistic and deliberative. By operationalising a conceptual set of categories, I show that this is too narrow. A third form (agonistic) can be recognized based on Chantal Mouffe’s theory of democracy and politics, and another form that is oriented to relativism. Thus, I propose an analytical framework with a set of four forms to address the nature of differences of opinion. In addition I provide empirical examples from a variety of contexts to support each form.
References
Andersson, K. ”Deliberativ undervisning – en empirisk studie.” PhD diss, Göteborgs universitet, 2012.
Benwell, Bethan and Stokoe, Elizabeth. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2006
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Brice, Lynn. ”Deliberative Discourse Enacted: Task, Text, and Talk.” Theory and Research in Social Education 30, no. 1 (2002): 66-87.
Chouliaraki, Lilie. ”Media discourse and national identity. Death and myth in a news broadcast”, i: Challenges in a Changing World. Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis, Ruth Wodak & Christoph Ludwig (red), 37-62. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
Colnerud, Gunnel. ”Värdegrund som pedagogisk praktik och forskningsdiskurs.” Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 9, no. 2 (2004): 81-98.
Dyson, Anne Haas. Writing Superheroes. Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture and Classroom Literacy. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univ. 1997.
Englund, Tomas. Deliberativa samtal om värdegrund-historiska perspektiv och aktuella förutsättningar. Övriga trycksaker. Stockholm: Skolverket, 2000.
Fairclough, Norman. Analyzing discourse Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge, 2003.
Günthner, Susanne. ”Prosodic contexualization of moral work: an analysis of reproaches in ’why’-formats,” i: Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, edited by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 271-301. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Hertzberg, F. 2006. “Genreskrivning under senare skolår: att berätta räcker inte”, i: Det hänger på språket! Lärande och språkutveckling i grundskolan, Louise Bjar (red), 295-317. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Jerome, Lee and Algarra, Bhavini. “Debating debating: a reflection on the place of debate within secondary schools.” The Curriculum Journal 16, no. 4 (2005): 493-508.
Mouffe, Chantal. Om det politiska. Stockholm: Tankekraft förlag, 2005/2008.
Todd, Sharon. “Living in a Dissonant World: Toward an Agonistic Cosmopolitics for Education.” Stud Philos Educ. 29, no. 2 (2010): 213-228
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Rhetorica Scandinavica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
