Abstract
Deep disagreement is a situation in which a conflict is so fundamental that there appears to be no underlying shared understanding by the arguers at any level. It is generally held that in such a case productive argument is not possible. Any claim the one party makes can be challenged by the other party in a potentially infinite regress, because there is no moment at which the interlocutor, by virtue of his or her prior commitments, is obligated to accept any standpoint. Overcoming deep disagreement requires transcending the impasse in the argument, seeing the controversy in a different light. Zarefsky identifies four pairs of strategies that involve rhetorical moves to reset the disagreement and reshape the argument. In addition, he presents two case studies to illustrate them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Argumentation and Advocacy, 9, 179–182.
Dallek, R. (1998). Flawed giant: Lyndon Johnson and his times, 1961–1973. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehninger, D. (1958). Debating as critical deliberation. Southern Communication Journal, 24, 22–30.
Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal logic, 7, 1–8.
Heidlebaugh, N. J. (2001). Judgment, rhetoric, and the problem of incommensurability: Recalling practical wisdom. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1959). Philosophy and argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in French in 1958.)
Schmitt, M. (2010, July/August). Boring politics, please. The American prospect, 21(6), 10.
Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Zarefsky, D. (1990). Lincoln, Douglas, and slavery: In the crucible of public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zarefsky, D. (2005). Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning. Chantilly VA: The Teaching Company. [Audio and video]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zarefsky, D. (2012). The Appeal for Transcendence: A Possible Response to Cases of Deep Disagreement. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)