Abstracts
Abstract
This project develops a novel framework of “argumentative civility” by analyzing political argumentation's nature and challenges. It distinguishes political disagreements from other domains, focusing on civility's dual role as both a facilitative and potentially oppressive tool. Key inquiries include: Who defines civility? Can it foster engagement without silencing dissent? The analysis integrates Western virtue argumentation theory with Islamic traditions of Munāẓara and Adab al-Jadal to build a cross-cultural model for civil discourse. Ultimately, this research aims to establish argumentative civility as a means of fostering peaceful coexistence and socio-political transformation through reasoned, inclusive debate across cultural boundaries.
Keywords:
- Adab al-Jadal,
- Argumentative civility,
- Civility,
- Equal political dignity,
- Munāẓara,
- Political argumentation,
- The minimum principle of argumentation,
- Virtue argumentation
Résumé
Ce projet développe un cadre novateur de «civilité argumentative» en analysant la nature et les enjeux de l'argumentation politique. Il distingue les désaccords politiques des autres domaines, en mettant l'accent sur le double rôle de la civilité, à la fois facilitateur et potentiellement oppressif. Les questions clés sont : qui définit la civilité? Peut-elle favoriser l'engagement sans étouffer la dissidence? L'analyse intègre la théorie occidentale de l'argumentation fondée sur la vertu aux traditions islamiques de la Munāẓara et d'Adab al-Jadal afin de construire un modèle interculturel de discours civilisé. En fin de compte, cette recherche vise à établir la civilité argumentative comme un moyen de favoriser la coexistence pacifique et la transformation sociopolitique par un débat raisonné et inclusif au-delà des frontières culturelles.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165-179.10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2016. The vices of argument. Topoi 35(2): 413-422.10.1007/s11245-015-9346-z Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2021. Was Aristotle a virtue argumentation theorist? In Essays on argumentation in antiquity, eds. Jacob A. Bjelde, David Merry, and Christoffer Roser, 215-229. Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-030-70817-7_11 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aikin, Scott F. and Robert B. Talisse. 2019. Why we argue (and how we should): A guide to political disagreement in the age of unreason. Routledge.10.4324/9781315110493 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aikin, Scott F. and Robert B. Talisse. 2020. Political argument in a polarized age: Reason and democratic life. Polity Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Arif, Sayed. 2020. The art of debate in Islam: Textual analysis and translation of Ṭaşköprüzāde’s Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Afkar 22(1): 187-216. https://doi.org/10.22452/afkar.vol22no1.710.22452/afkar.vol22no1.7 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bejan, Teresa M. 2017. Mere civility: Disagreement and the limits of toleration. Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674972728 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Calhoun, Cheshire. 2000. The virtue of civility. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29(3): 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00251.x10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00251.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cassam, Quassim. 2022. The vices and virtues of extremism. In Social virtue epistemology, eds. Mark Alfano, Colin Klein, and Jeroen de Ridder, 173-191. Routledge.10.4324/9780367808952-24 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Easton, D. 1953. The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gascón, José Ángel. 2015. Arguing as a virtuous arguer would argue. Informal Logic 35(4): 467-484. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i4.433210.22329/il.v35i4.4332 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Guinness, Os. 2008. The case for civility: And why our future depends on it. HarperCollins e-books.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hample, Dale, Bing Han, and David Payne. 2010. The aggressiveness of playful arguments. Argumentation 24(4): 405-421.10.1007/s10503-009-9173-8 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hassan, Hareim Hadi. 2024. Political extremism: An argumentative approach (PhD dissertation). University of Windsor. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10489andcontext=etdGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hansen, Hans V. and Hareim Hadi Hassan. 2024. Perspectives on political arguments. In Proceedings of the tenth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 323-332. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4107797Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hill, Charles A. and Marguerite Helmers, eds. 2004. Defining visual rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kock, Christian. 2017. Deliberative rhetoric: Arguing about doing. University of Windsor.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Love, Christopher W. 2021. The epistemic value of civil disagreement. Social Theory and Practice 47(4): 629-655. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract202191713810.5840/soctheorpract2021917138 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Miller, Larry B. 2021. Islamic Disputation Theory. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45012-010.1007/978-3-030-45012-0 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Oruç, Rahmi, Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, and Karim Sadek. 2023. Sequencing critical moves for ethical argumentative practice: Munāẓara and the interdependence of procedure and agent. Informal Logic 43(1): 113-137.10.22329/il.v43i1.7073 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Radziewsky, Kai von. 2013. The virtuous arguer: One person, four characters. Scholarship at UWindsor. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/144Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Reiheld, Alison. 2013. Asking too much? Civility vs. pluralism. Philosophical Topics 41(2): 59-78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43932736.pdf10.5840/philtopics201341215 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rorty, R. 1994/1999. Religion as conversation-stopper. In Philosophy and social hope, 168–174. Penguin Books.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rorty, R. 2010. Religion in the public square. In C. Voparil & R. J. Bernstein (Eds.), The Rorty reader, 456–562. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Talisse, Robert B. 2021. Semantic descent: More trouble for civility. Connecticut Law Review 52(3): 1149-1168.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Thunder, David. 2006. A Rawlsian argument against the duty of civility. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00209.x10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00209.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Zamalin, Alex. 2021. Against civility: The hidden racism in our obsession with civility. Beacon Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
