Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues

Egres, Dorottya

doi:10.1075/jaic.20003.egr

Article published In:

Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.145–170

Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues

Dorottya Egres | Budapest University of Technology and Economics

This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political, environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand, topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in the national energy production.

Keywords: argumentation, deliberation, nuclear energy, policy, polylogue, strategic maneuvering

Article outline

1.Introduction
2.The extended polylogue of the expansion
3.The results of public opinion polls and audience demand
4.The topics of discourse and topical potential
5.The presentational devices of an extended controversy
6.Fully-fledged argumentative strategy
7.Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Notes
Availability of data
References

Published online: 5 July 2021

https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20003.egr

References

Aakhus, Mark

2009 “Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society.” Proceedings of the 16th NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta UT, 1–12.

Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński

2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation 31 (1): 179–207.

Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek, and Punit Dadlani

2016 “Argumentation in large, complex practices.” OSSA Conference Archive. 541. [URL]

Arlt, Dorothee, and Jens Wolling

2015 “Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (7): 1–16.

Bourdieu, Pierre

1979 “Public opinion does not exist.” Trans. Axtmann, M. C. In Capitalism, imperialism. Vol. 1 of Communication and class struggle, ed. by Armand Mattleart, and Seth Siegelaub, 124–30. New York: International General.

Crosswhite, James

1996 The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Culler, Connie

2015 Good Works: The Topoi of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Travel and Tourism Industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Central Florida, STARS, [URL]

Demeter, Márton

2018 “Propaganda against the West in the Heart of Europe. A masked official state campaign in Hungary”. Central European Journal of Communication 11 (21): 177–97.

Egres, Dorottya

2020 “Virtuális vitatér – A Paks 2 polilógus hyperlink hálózatának elemzése” [Virtual venues for argumentation – Analysis of the hyperlink network of the Paks 2 polylogue]. Információs Társadalom 20 (1): 50–71.

Egres, Dorottya, and Petschner Anna

2020 “The Paks Pact: Topoi in Hungarian Nuclear Energy Discourse.” In Controversies and Interdisciplinarity. Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model. ed. by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna, and Giovanni Scarafile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Einsiedel, Edna F.

2008 “Public participation and dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–84. London and New York: Routledge.

Ellwanger, Adam

2017 “Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (3): 181–98.

Eriksson, Anders

2012 “Argumentative Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation”. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Fahnestock, Jeanne

2009 “Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani

1989 “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37.

Guardian

2018 Russia poses greater threat than Isis, new British army chief warns. November 24. [URL] (February 6 2020)

International Energy Agency

2017 Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Hungary 2017 Review. IEA Publications. [URL] (February 6 2020)

Kim, Jiyoun, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Michael Xenos

2016 ““Shared” information in the age of Big Data: Exploring sentiment expression related to nuclear energy on Twitter.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93 (2): 430–45.

Kristiansen, Silije

2017 “Characteristics of the mass media’s coverage of nuclear energy and its risk: A literature review.” Sociology Compass 11 (7): 1–10.

Leff, Michael

2006 “Up from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36 (2): 203–11.

Levasseur, David G.

2005 “The role of public opinion in policy argument: An examination of public opinion rhetoric in the federal budget process.” Argumentation and Advocacy 41 (3): 152–67.

Lewiński, Marcin

2010 “Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105.

2013 “Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation. Sides, positions, and cases.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 151–77.

2016 “Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse & Communication 10 (6): 553–75.

Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus

2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–85.

Lewiński, Marcin, and J. Anthony Blair

2011 Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? OSSA Conference Archive. 521. [URL]

Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed

2015 “Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media.” In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Catherine Helen Palczewski, 291–7. London and New York: Routledge.

Lewiński, Marcin, and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün

2019 “Environmental argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1): 1–11.

Mohammed, Dima

2018 “Standing standpoints and argumentative associates. What is at stake in a public political argument?” Argumentation 33 (3): 307–22.

Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus

2018 “Discovering argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument mining.” Argumentation 32 (3): 397–430.

Noella-Neumann, Elisabeth

1974 “The Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 24 (2): 43–51.

Novikau, Aliaksandr

2017 “Nuclear power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 1–14.

Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati

2016 “Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.” Argumentation 30 (4): 467–99.

Pariser, Eli

2011 The Filter Bubble. How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780143121237.

Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca

1958 La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Pidgeon, Nick, and Christina C. Demski

2012 “From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 68 (4): 41–51.

Prati, Gabriele, and Bruna Zani

2012 “The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values.” Environment and Behavior 45 (6): 782–98.

Rubinelli, Sara

2009 Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Simonovits, Bori

2020 “The Public Perception of the Migration Crisis from the Hungarian Point of View. Evidence from the Field.” In Geographies of Asylum in Europe and the Role of European Localities, ed. by Brigit Glorus and Jeroen Doomernik. Springer.

Sarlós, Gábor

2014 Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary. Ph.D Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.

2015a “A közvéleménykutatások szerepe a magyarországi atomenergia diskurzus alakításában [The role of opinion polls in shaping the nuclear discourse in Hungary].” Új jel-kép: kommunikáció, közvélemény, média 4 (1): 20–38.

2015b “Miért áll a konfliktusok középpontjában az atomenergia? [Why is nuclear energy at the center of conflicts?].” Presentation, Budapest, March 2015.

2015c “Kockázatok és előnyök megjelenése az atomenergia magyarországi kommunikációs narratíváiban [Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary].” Ph.D Dissertation summary. Eötvös Loránd University.

Than, Krisztina

2015 Special Report: Inside Hungary’s $10.8 billion nuclear deal with Russia. Reuters, March 30, World News. [URL] (February 6 2020)

Thogmorton, James A.

1993 “Planning as a rhetorical activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in Chicago.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (3): 334–46.

Tindale, Cristopher W.

2006 “Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise.” Argumentation 20 (4): 447–66.

2007 “Revisiting Aristotle’s Topoi”. OSSA Conference Archive 141. Available at: [URL]

2015 The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turcanu, Catrinel, Tanja Perko, and Erik Laes

2014 “Public participation processes related to nuclear research installations: What are the driving factors behind participation intention?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (3): 331–47.

van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser

2009 “Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–24.

van Eemeren, Frans. H.

2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

2015 “Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Argumentation in political deliberation, ed. by Marcin Lewiński, and Dima Mohammed, 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

2017 “Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Contextualizing pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–44.

2018 Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer.

Woo, Jongroul, HyungBin Moon, Jongsu Lee, and Jinyong Jang

2017 “Public attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea.” Energy & Environment 28 (4): 1–19.

Ylönen, Marja, Tapio Litmanen, Matti Kojo, and Pirita Lindell

2015 “The (de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 260–74.

Zarefsky, David

2009 “Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering.” ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 115–30.