The role of mediation in the resolution of deep disagreements

Hele tekst

(1)! ! The role of mediation in the resolution . of deep disagreements. ! by. Cristina Baeza. 10848592. ! ! !. A thesis submitted to the University of Amsterdam . in partial fulfillment of the requirements for . the degree of MA Discourse and Argumentation Studies. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. Supervisor / Second Reader. Dr. Jean H.M. Wagemans. Dr. E.T. (Eveline) Feteris. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. June 2015, Amsterdam. !.

(2) Table of contents. ! !. Acknowledgements. 1. 1 Introduction . 2. 6. ! ! !. 2 Dispute resolution in deep disagreements. 2.1 The ideal model for dispute resolution. 2.2 Characterization of deep disagreements in terms of the ideal model. 2.3 Upholding procedural commitments in deep disagreements. ! !. 3 The role of mediation in dispute resolution . 3.1 Tasks of the mediator in dispute resolution. 3.2 Argumentative techniques in mediation. ! !. 4 Mediation in deep disagreements. 17. 25. 4.1 The role of mediation in deep disagreements. 4.2 Mediator’s strategies for the resolution of a deep disagreement. 4.2.1 Strategies in the confrontation stage. 4.2.2 Strategies in the opening stage. 4.2.3 Strategies in the argumentation stage. 4.2.4 Strategies in the concluding stage. !. 5 Conclusion . 35. Bibliography . 39. ! ! ! !.

(3) Acknowledgements. ! !. First and foremost I offer my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Jean Wagemans, for supporting me throughout my thesis with patience, motivation, enthusiasm and immense knowledge. Thank you for your dedication, constructive feedback and valuable insight. I could not have hoped for a better advisor in this journey. . I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all of the Department of Speech. Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric faculty members who I have had the opportunity to meet this year. During my time at the University of Amsterdam, I have been amazingly fortunate to learn from talented and passionate professors who have motivated me greatly. Dr. Corina Andone, dr. Bert Meuffels, dr. Bart Garssen, dr. Jean Wagemans, dr. Eveline Feteris and dr. Ingeborg van der Geest: I owe the level of my degree to your teachings.. I am also indebted to my roommate and friend, Anna, for her unwavering trust and support.. She has read, commented on and heard about ‘deep disagreements’ more than she ever asked to. . Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents for their unceasing encouragement and love,. even in the distance. None of this would have been possible without them. . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. 1.

(4) 1 Introduction. ! !. The label of ‘deep disagreement’ corresponds to a certain kind of difference of opinion which was first brought up to light by Fogelin in his article The Logic of Deep Disagreements, originally written in 1985. According to this text, a deep disagreement is a deviation of the characteristics of a normal argumentative exchange in that there is a lack of shared background of beliefs, values and preferences among discussants. The ‘framework propositions’, as Fogelin first referred to them, are not communal for the participants in a dispute characterized by a state of deep disagreement, which inevitably undermines the possibility of fruitful and productive argument. As a consequence, in that first article Fogelin conclusively stated that there is no room for productive argumentation at all in a case of deep disagreement. Given that there are no common premises to which a participant can appeal to in order to convince his opponent of the acceptability of a proposition, any offers of reason will inevitably turn out ineffective. In Fogelin’s view, in the event of a deep disagreement any attempt for rational resolution should be given up beforehand because the conditions necessary for argumentation do not exist (Fogelin, 2005, pp. 3-11). . Since the publication of that first article many authors have come up in subsequent papers. with alternative and more optimistic views regarding the possibility of a potential resolution of a disagreement when it is identified as ‘deep’ in Fogelin’s sense. In order to understand the views of these authors further elaboration is in place with regards to the meaning of the concept of ‘framework proposition’. As Fogelin states it, ‘an argumentative exchange is normal when it takes place within the context of broadly shared beliefs and preferences’ as well as ‘shared procedures for resolving disagreements’ (2005, p. 6). The activity of arguing thus presupposes certain background of shared commitments, which comprise both a system of common beliefs, values and preferences with respect to the topic at hand as well as certain joint procedural convictions with respect to the argumentative exchange itself. The distinction between these two different kind of beliefs accounts for the use of two different terms in this research: substantive or material beliefs in contrast with procedural beliefs. According to Fogelin, participants in a dispute need to share not only a common ground of substantive beliefs, but also a joint idea of what procedures should be followed to resolve such dispute, and what are the ‘rules’ that apply on it. For instance, discussants should share the same idea of what constitutes a rational discussion in order to proceed accordingly. . This ideal situation, which can be found in theoretical ideals of optimally resolution-oriented. disagreements, is not the case in a deep disagreement, because either both or one of those shared beliefs are absent. Since the condition of the shared background of material and procedural beliefs is not met in a case of deep disagreement, Fogelin’s suggestion is to seek for alternative ways, such as. 2.

(5) rhetorical persuasion, to be undertaken in such context, since no rational procedures can be used for its resolution (Fogelin, 2005, p. 9). . Yet, the analysis of the literature shows that certain authors acknowledge that an agreement. upon the procedures that ought to be followed for a rational resolution of the difference of opinion provides sufficient grounds to find argumentative progress in a case of deep disagreement. For instance, in her article Phillips defends that procedural commitments are in fact the only ones that need to be present among discussants in order to reach productive argumentation. According to this author, ‘the potential for fruitful argument does not require any common beliefs’, but it does, however, ‘require certain joint procedural commitments and competencies with respect to the argumentative exchange itself’ (2008, p. 97). This approach suggests that as long as the parties voluntarily commit to certain joint procedural beliefs, material beliefs can be dealt with and progression through argumentation can take place. In this sense, Phillips agrees to a number of other authors when she suggests that deep disagreements constitute a ‘procedural challenge’ rather than a real theoretical threat (Phillips, 2008, p. 94; Lugg, 1986, pp. 48-51). With such an approach, there is room for hope when dealing with a case of deep disagreement, although problems arise when putting theory into practice. . Agreeing upon the procedural commitments that should be followed for the resolution of a. deep disagreement, firstly, and upholding those commitments through the development of the dispute, secondly, requires highly analytical and practical skills that are often beyond the expertise of ordinary language users. Besides, once these procedural beliefs have been found and discussants have committed to follow them throughout the discussion, the addressing of the material beliefs at stake in a deep disagreement represents an equally challenging enterprise. As Fogelin pointed out, the discussion of framework propositions concerns beliefs that are central to the participant’s respective world views, which interlocutors will not be keen to subject to rational scrutiny (2005, p. 6). Turner and Wright recognize as well that the felt delicacy of these issues ‘naturally undermines the patience required to treat a subject of this depth and subtlety. The option of thinking the obduracy lies in the personal flaws of the opposition rather than the difficulty of the topic may be irresistible’ (2005, p.32). Ultimately, what all authors seem to recognize is that any procedural commitments parties have agreed upon in a dispute concerning a case of deep disagreement will be in principle hard to maintain in actual argumentative practice. As a result, the rational discussion of material beliefs is also impeded.. Given the alleged importance of the role that procedural beliefs play in the rational resolution. of a deep disagreement in the literate, it could be concluded that procedural commitments provide the basis for productive argumentation in a deep disagreement, a groundwork from which material beliefs can be later on addressed. Still, even when the willingness and commitment of the participants is. 3.

(6) positively present, the discussion will proceed with great difficulties and most likely unfruitfully, since its participants are subjecting to scrutiny beliefs that are central to their respective worldviews. These beliefs are both very intricate to identify, because they lie in the background of the participant’s core beliefs, and to address, once they have been identified. This reality strongly jeopardizes the rationality of the discussion, making any positive outcome -or even any real progress- rather unlikely. Even though the most recent literature suggests that a rational resolution of a deep disagreement is theoretically possible, at least to a certain extent, it is the reality of authentic argumentative practice that puts at risk any actual progress. Factors such as time, urgency, patience, arguing skills and the like, result in participants resorting to alternative non-rational methods of persuasion instead of the appealing to reasons. . It is precisely at this point where I encountered a problem in my study of the phenomenon of. deep disagreements. So far in the literature of deep disagreements no author has addressed the question of how to resolve the issue of agreeing upon as well as maintaining the procedural commitments among participants that will allow for argumentative progress. Albeit authors recognize the existence of the problem, thus far the literature is solely limited to report it. Through this thesis I intend to research a possible solution to the problem of how can participants be compelled to stay within the boundaries of rationality while arguing in a discussion characterized by a state of deep disagreement. I propose mediation as the starting point for such goal. Mediation, defined as a thirdparty facilitator dealing with a difference of opinion impossible to be resolved by the parties themselves, can be used as a guide for the parties in their cooperative search for a rational resolution. What I aim at in this thesis is to specify how mediation can successfully intervene in the resolution of a deep disagreement, given its defining characteristics. The research question that accompanies this aim is: what is the potential role of mediation in the rational resolution of a discussion characterized by a state of deep disagreement? . So as to provide an answer to this question this research will be divided into three parts. These. parts correspond to the three items involved in the study: the phenomenon of deep disagreements, the activity of mediation, and a specification of the role of mediation when it is dedicated to the resolution of a deep disagreement. . In chapter 2, I will describe deep disagreements in terms of the ideal model of a critical. discussion, as developed within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation elaborated by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984). In this sense, pragma-dialectics will serve as the theoretical background in this research, against which I can compare the occurrences of deep disagreements in relation with a theoretical ideal of fully resolution-oriented discussions. By means of the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation and the ideal model of a critical discussion contained in it, I can investigate the specific flaws of a discussion when it develops in the context of a deep disagreement. I. 4.

(7) will start analyzing in the first section of this chapter the characteristics of the ideal model of a critical discussion. In the following section, I will study how deep disagreements characteristically deviate from this ideal model in order to become familiar with the context in which the activity of mediation unfolds in this paper. I will also investigate in depth the idea of how the lack of shared material beliefs can be dealt with if procedural beliefs are common and stable among participants throughout the discussion process. The final section of the chapter studies the difficulties of precisely agreeing upon as well as maintaining such procedural commitments in actual argumentative reality, particularly in the challenging frame of deep disagreements. This last section will thus serve to understand why the intervention of a mediator is potentially fruitful in such context. . In chapter 3, I will examine the role of the mediator in dispute resolution in terms of the ideal. model of a critical discussion. I will study the specific function of mediation in every stage of a critical discussion, in order to discover what are the tasks of the mediator in helping participants to fulfill the particular aims of every stage, and in doing so, in achieving the desired outcome of rational resolution. Pragma-dialectics is employed as the theoretical framework providing an ideal of fully rational resolution-oriented discussions, which is the kind of discussion the mediator aims at in this research. In the second section of this chapter I will study three mediator’s argumentative techniques. I will analyze how these techniques work and how they serve the mediator in his goal of achieving the aims of each stage of a critical discussion, so I can apply their benefits in the subsequent chapter.. In chapter 4, I will explore the link between the challenges arising in a dispute of a deep. disagreement and the alleged benefits of a third-party intervention. This chapter will combine the description of a deep disagreement in terms of the ideal model of a critical discussion provided in the first chapter, in which the claimed impediments for the rational resolution are outlined, with the mediator’s tasks and argumentative techniques, as described in chapter 3. In this way, I will be able to analyze the role of mediation in the resolution of a deep disagreement considering the studied obstacles that discussants find in such context, so as to provide an answer to the research question. In order to illustrate the theoretical and abstract ideas discussed throughout the research, I will use in this chapter an hypothetical example of a critical discussion conducted on the topic of euthanasia, which is a disagreement that meets the characteristics to be labelled as ‘deep’. I will exemplify how a discussion in this scenario could proceed with the assistance of a mediator in every stage of the ideal model of a critical discussion, and I will show the specific functions of the mediator’s guidance in such a process. . ! ! ! !. 5.

(8) 2 Dispute resolution in deep disagreements. ! !. 2.1 The ideal model for dispute resolution. !. In order to understand the competencies and commitments required for the rational resolution of a difference of opinion, I will frame dispute resolution within the theoretical background of pragmadialectics. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation with regards to dispute resolution will serve in subsequent steps as the basis to analyze the intrinsic complications of discussions characterized by a state of deep disagreement. The pragma-dialectical approach to dispute resolution offers a tool which enables to identify and select those elements that play a relevant role to the resolution process, as well as to understand the function they serve, by providing an ideal model of a critical discussion aimed at the resolution of a difference of opinion on the merits. The argumentation scholars Van Eemeren and Grootendorst developed a general theory of argumentation (Van Eemeren et al., 1984, 2004) which introduced a model for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discussions that accounts for the elements playing a role in the resolution of a difference of opinion by rational means. In this way, the model works as an heuristic as well as a critical tool on how a discussion can be best conducted toward its rational resolution. When this is not the case, it allows for the identification of the factors in which the elements put forward in the discussion process offered a negative contribution. Because of these characteristics, the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion will be employed in this research as the theoretical ideal against which the phenomenon of deep disagreements will be compared. . There are two aspects to consider within the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation.. The pragmatic element regards argumentation as a goal-oriented activity, analyzing the discussion moves in a critical discussion as speech acts with a certain function in the resolution of the dispute. For this reason, the theory formulates communicative and interactional rules for the use of argumentative language in discussions. The dialectical element provides the perspective from which argumentation is considered to be part of a critical exchange of discussion moves, the goal being to subject the standpoint under discussion to a critical test. The resolution of a critical discussion under the pragma-dialectical approach means that a conclusion is reached when the protagonist has defended successfully his point of view against the critical reactions of the antagonist, or when the antagonist has attacked it successfully. In this sense, the goal of the discussion is to reach agreement regarding the acceptability of the standpoint or standpoints put forward by the discussants (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 58). This process is carried out with a falsification attitude as in the. 6.

(9) scientific field, on the basis of shared rules and starting points which have been stated and agreed upon by the parties.. The ideal model of a critical discussion specifies certain stages that can be analytically. distinguished in the resolution process of a difference of opinion, together with the various speech acts which contribute to this process and that have a very specific function in each of the stages. The stages are designed to analyze and evaluate whether the discussants’ moves in a discussion contribute to the dialectical procedure of reaching a joint conclusion ‘on the acceptability of the standpoints at issue on the basis of a regulated and unimpaired exchange of arguments and criticism’ (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 58). In this respect, the four stages of the model of a critical discussion provide a series of steps and norms by which ‘it can be determined in what respects and argumentative exchange of ideas diverges from the procedure that is the most conducive to the resolution of a difference of opinion’ (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 59). The stages that have to be passed through by the participants in an argumentative exchange in order to arrive at a resolution of a difference of opinion are the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage. . In the confrontation stage, the subject of the dispute is established. In this stage the difference. of opinion is externalized and it is made clear that there is a standpoint that has met with doubt or contradiction. The difference of opinion can be explicit or implicit; in the latter case, it is assumed by the protagonist that a difference of opinion exists or is anticipated. Because criticisms are anticipated is the reason why argumentation is advanced. Only when real or presumed discrepancy is in place, there is need to advance argumentation and engage in a critical discussion (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 60).. In the opening stage the participants set up the discussion rules, starting points and evaluation. methods. Certain agreements are reached concerning the manner in which the dispute and the discussion are to be conducted. According to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, the parties have to determine as well whether there is sufficient common ground to serve as a starting point. In this sense, ‘the parties to the difference of opinion try to find out how much relevant common ground they share (as to the discussion format, background knowledge, values, and so on) in order to be able to determine whether their procedural and substantial ‘zone of agreement’ is sufficiently broad to conduct a fruitful discussion’ (2004, p. 60). Only if there is such a common background of procedural as well as substantive agreements, it makes sense to undertake an attempt to remove the difference of opinion by means of argumentation. In practice, the opening stage remains often implicit because it is tacitly assumed that the required common ground exists (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 60).. In the argumentation stage, the standpoints advanced by the participants are defended against. critical reactions. The discussants advance their arguments in order to systematically overcome the. 7.

(10) opponent’s doubts or attacks. If a party considers that the argumentation advanced by the opponent, or parts of it, is not convincing, the defendant will be provided with further critical reactions, which will be followed by further argumentation. The argumentative structure of the argumentation stage can vary from being extremely simple to extremely complex (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 61).. In the concluding stage, the parties establish the outcome of their attempt to resolve a. difference of opinion. In pragma-dialectical terms, the dispute can only be considered to be resolved if the parties are in agreement that the protagonist’s standpoint is acceptable and the antagonist’s doubt must be retracted, or that the standpoint of the protagonist must be retracted (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, pp. 61-62). . The pragma-dialectical ideal model also provides rules for the resolution of disputes which. are gathered within the code of conduct for rational discussants. These rules acknowledge certain rights and obligations that are essential for the pragma-dialectical ideal of resolution. The rules include the right to put forward and cast doubt on a standpoint by any person, the right and the obligation to defend a standpoint by means of argumentation when it has been advanced, the right to maintain a standpoint which is successfully defended and the obligation to accept a standpoint which has been successfully defended by the opponent. The rules also embrace the maxims of sincerity, efficiency and relevancy, under the form of the following general norms for communication: perform no incomprehensible speech acts, perform no insincere speech acts and perform no unnecessary speech acts (Van Eeemeren & Grotendorst, 2004, pp. 136-157). . The pragma-dialectical approach permits to regard any violations of the rules of the model as. fallacies, which are considered as possible threats to the resolution of the dispute. Every violation of a rule is a potential threat to the successful conclusion of the discussion, regardless of which party is responsible and regardless of the stage of the discussion in which it occurs. From that perspective, all violations of the rules are wrong moves in a critical discussion, since each of the norms incorporated in the rules for a critical discussion has a distinctive function in keeping the discussion on track, and thus any violation of the norms hinders such function (Van Eeemeren, 2004, p. 162). For this reason, each part of the argumentative discourse can be judged for its soundness or fallaciousness according to its contribution at resolving the dispute. Any move that obstructs the realization of the general aim of resolving a difference of opinion on the merits is considered to be a fallacious move.. In order to comply with these discussion rules, participants should act as rational discussants:. that is to say, they must proceed with a reasonable discussion attitude. Even though in ordinary language use the word rational and reasonable are interchangeably, Van Eemeren draws a distinction between the meanings of the two terms. While the term “rational” is understood as the activity of using reason, the term “reasonable” is meant as, in his definition, ‘the using of reason in a way that is appropriate in view of the communicative and interactional situation’ (Van Eemeren, 2013, p. 142).. 8.

(11) The idea of reasonableness is established from a dual criterion: its problem-solving validity and its intersubjective validity. From this perspective, all components of the discussion are checked on their capability to serve the function they are designed to serve, their adequacy for resolving a difference of opinion, and on their intersubjective acceptability to discussants, which will depend upon the starting points and rules for discussion established in the opening stage (Van Eemeren, 2013, p. 142).. So as to assume such a reasonable discussion attitude, the rules of the ideal model of a critical. discussion are regarded as first-order conditions for having a critical discussion, according to the pragma-dialectical ideal model. The second-order conditions involve the state of mind the discussants are assumed to be in. These conditions are designed to make sure discussants are genuinely willing to resolve their dispute in a rational way, accepting that their standpoints can be proven wrong and acknowledging that the opponent’s standpoints can be justified when they are successfully defended according to the agreed starting points and evaluation procedures. The conditions which concern the external circumstances of the discussion (for instance, the freedom to defend a point of view of the participant’s own choice and the freedom to cast doubt on others’) are known as third-order conditions, and they relate to the social circumstances in which the discussion takes place. Together, this set of conditions conform what the authors refer to as the higher order conditions for resolving a difference of opinion in the ideal sense. Only when the higher order conditions are met can critically reasonableness be fully realized in practice (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, pp. 187 - 189).. The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation provides a critical stance towards actual. argumentative practice. The ideal model of a critical discussion, as a theoretical abstraction for ideal resolution-oriented discourse, provides a framework for both the interpretation of argumentative discourse in reality and for the evaluation of argumentative conduct. In this section I analyzed the guidelines, in the form of rules or commandments, that the model offers to discussants who are willing to fulfill the role of reasonable discussants as well as the first, second and third order conditions which must be met in order to meet the requirements to engage in a critical discussion. I have also studied the four stages of a critical discussion and their respective aims towards the general goal of achieving agreement on the acceptability or unacceptability of the proposition involved. Each of the stages has its purpose within the ideal model of a critical discussion. When the respective aims are not attained, the path to the rational resolution of the dispute is partly or completely impeded. . The topic of this research focuses on the heuristic component of the pragma-dialectical. theory, in which the ideal model provides a tool for the analysis of real instances of argumentative practice while systematically taking into consideration the diversity of communicative settings, with their respective difficulties and potential obstructions in particular. In the following section, deep disagreements appear as a one particularly challenging dispute scenario.. !. 9.

(12) ! 2.2 Characterization of deep disagreements in terms of the ideal model. !. Van Eeemeren and Grootendorst proposed the model of a critical discussion with the primary function of providing a theoretical ideal leading discussants in their efforts to resolve a difference of opinion on the merits (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 188). The ideal model is not designed as an ‘unattainable utopia’ of dispute resolution but as a point of reference in the analysis of argumentative discourse (Van Eeemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 188). In this sense, argumentative reality will always differ from the ideal model to a certain degree; every instance of real argumentative exchange will deviate in a distinct and characteristic way. In this section, I will analyze how deep disagreements, as a specific type of difference of opinion, characteristically deviate from the ideal model of a critical discussion because of their particular features.. According to Fogelin, and as it is shared by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst in their model of. a critical discussion, resolution-oriented disputes share two distinctive features: they occur within a background of context of broadly shared beliefs and preferences as well as shared procedures for resolving the dispute (Fogelin, 2005, p. 6). Deep disagreements do not comply with any of these two qualities by definition. Indeed, the most characteristic feature of deep disagreements is the lack of shared beliefs and preferences among participants. In addition, ‘disagreements which are deep are characteristically and abnormally resolution-resistant in that they are ‘immune to appeals to facts’ an tend to ‘persist even when normal criticisms have been answered’’ (Godden & Brennen, 2010, p. 43). Fogelin mentions that under the circumstances of a deep disagreement, ‘the parties may be unbiased, free of prejudice, consistent, coherent, precise and rigorous, yet still disagree. And disagree profoundly, not just marginally’ (Fogelin, 2005, p. 8). Translated into pragma-dialectical terms, parties in a dispute might be acting from a reasonable discussion attitude and according to the rules of a critical discussion and yet find no argumentative progress, because the argumentation advanced in defense of the standpoint does not meet with any common starting points.. It is assumed that normal disagreements can turn out irresolvable in certain occasions, due,. for example, to the ignorance or the lack of skills of the participants involved. However, the impossibility of the resolution of a deep disagreement appears in the literature as an intrinsic characteristic of this type of difference of opinion, arising from the marked absence of any relevant shared background commitments. Fogelin pointed at a clash of ‘underlying principles’ or ‘framework propositions’ that cannot be reduced to a single proposition or isolated issue. These framework propositions occur instead at a much deeper level, within a whole system of beliefs and preferences that conforms the person’s own ‘form of life’, or general perspective influencing all other kind of personal views and opinions (Fogelin, 2005, pp. 7-9). . 10.

(13) . Even though Fogelin’s claim is that argumentation has no resources to do so, subsequent. authors have argued that a case of deep disagreement can be reduced to a difference of opinion of a single claim which can be rationally addressed, inasmuch as it constitutes an ‘ultimate premise, methodological principle or primitive rule of inference’ (Davson-Galle, 1992, p. 153). In other words, as long as the claim at issue is genuinely basic or primary. But even when it is seen from this perspective, discussants in a deep disagreement would still find the problem of the impossibility to jointly ‘appeal to any standard, criterion, test to which they are both committed and with which they can set about their differences’ (Adams, 2005, p. 69). That is to say, even when the literature recognizes the feasibility of the resolution of a deep disagreement by means of rationally addressing the ultimate source of conflict, the lack of joint procedural beliefs would still prevent any argumentative progress, since there is no common agreement among discussants on the resolution procedures which ought to be followed for the resolution of the difference of opinion. . As mentioned in chapter 1, Fogelin includes within the concept of ‘framework propositions’. both a context of shared beliefs and preferences, which would act as the starting points to which argumentation can hold on, as well as shared procedures for resolving disagreements (Fogelin, 2005, pp. 5-9). Hence, the activity of arguing presupposes a background of shared commitments comprising both material beliefs as well as procedural beliefs. In the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion, the material beliefs would be the equivalent to the starting points for argumentation, while procedural beliefs would find their akin in the evaluation methods against which the argumentation is analyzed. Since resolution-oriented discourse is impossible without sufficient common ground, the lack of shared procedural and material beliefs among discussants in deep disagreements is categorized as the major deviation from the idea model. . There are other consequences in the development of a discussion of a deep disagreement.. When analyzed from the pragma-dialectical perspective, parties involved in a deep disagreement find great difficulties in attaining the aim of every stage of the ideal model of a critical discussion. Because of their defining characteristics, deep disagreements translate into a series of obstacles for the parties along the discussion process when such discussion is analyzed under the lens of the pragmadialectical model of argumentation. In the previous section, I studied the distinct aims of the four stages of a critical discussion and how they contribute towards the resolution of a dispute:. In the confrontation stage, parties must be able to identify which exact proposition or. propositions are being critically tested. The characteristics of a deep disagreement make it an arduous task for the participants in the discussion to identify where does the disagreement exactly arise from because of the nature of the propositions at issue. Parties engaging in a dispute characterized by a state of deep disagreement will most likely instinctively address surface features of the conflict, when in fact the source of the conflict lies within a much deeper level of personal principles and views.. 11.

(14) According to Phillips, ‘people with few shared beliefs about the topic they are discussing will probably disagree at a much deeper level, and hence the source(s) of their disagreement will take more work to identify’ (2008, p. 100). Moreover, Phillip continues: ‘when they do recognize them, they are more likely to concern beliefs that are central to their respective worldviews. Naturally, interlocutors might not be included to subject these sort of beliefs to rational scrutiny’ (2008, p. 100). This fact will be reflected also in subsequent stages of the discussion.. In the opening stage, the necessary common ground for argumentation is established in the. form of joint material starting points and evaluation procedures among discussants. The major characteristic of deep disagreement precludes the aim of this stage to be achieved. In a deep disagreement, no relevant material and procedural starting points are shared between the parties.. In the argumentation stage, parties advance arguments in defense of their standpoints or. express criticism or doubt as a response to the opponent’s arguments. Two problems arise with respect to this stage in the context of a deep disagreement. Firstly, the argumentation advanced by the parties will likely defend standpoints which do not actually represent the actual source of disagreement, since the problem of the identification of the conflict at hand (the aim of the confrontation stage) has not been resolved successfully. In this sense, even when the argumentation results convincing for the opponent, it does not serve the goal of finding a resolution for the deep disagreement, because the standpoint it defends do not constitute the ultimate representation of such conflict. This is the idea Fogelin expressed when he stated that parties in a deep disagreement might reach agreement on a wide range of ideas and facts, yet still disagree (2005, p. 8). The reason is precisely that they are not advancing arguments for the right standpoint. Secondly, even when the standpoint has been successfully identified, the argumentation advanced in its defense will be futile because of the lack of shared procedural and material starting points. Without sufficient common ground among discussants, the conditions for argumentation do not exist, and the argumentative exchange will turn out ineffective.. The concluding stage of a critical discussion holds the aim of establishing the outcome of the. discussion. In the context of a deep disagreement, since the standpoints at issue have not been correctly identified in the confrontation stage, there is no agreement with regards to the procedural and material starting points in the opening stage, and the argumentation stage has proceeded unfruitfully, it is in principle not possible to achieve agreement on the acceptability or unacceptability of the standpoints at issue.. In a deep disagreement, then, the stages of the ideal model cannot proceed successfully. because their respective aims are not attained. Albeit the deviations exposed in every stage of a critical discussion render deep disagreements as apparently irresolvable, the distinction between the concepts of material and procedural beliefs is the key to adopt an approach to the resolution of deep. 12.

(15) disagreements other than the conclusive statement made by Fogelin and his supporters. According to some authors, there is room for argumentative progress as long as participants can agree upon certain procedural commitments to resolve their dispute to the extent that is possible. Even when this possibility does not guarantee an outcome of complete mutual agreement, Phillips, along many other authors concerned with the topic, argues for ‘the possibility of arguing effectively towards a rational resolution of the issue’, even when ‘argument often does not end with a clear resolution of the issue at hand’ but a ‘tentative unsettling of a belief that will eventually lead to its dislodgment’ (2008, p. 94). . Provided that participants are able to reach agreement regarding the manner in which the. dispute is addressed and they are committed to stay within the boundaries of this agreement, argumentative progress can exist. Procedural commitments can create the basis to rationally address the material beliefs at stake in a deep disagreement. In this sense, procedural beliefs play a major role in the resolution of this type of difference of opinion. Yet, the difficulties of upholding such procedural commitments are unavoidable precisely because of the defining characteristics of deep disagreements.. ! !. 2.3 Upholding procedural commitments in deep disagreements. !. Besides the higher order conditions established in the model of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, the decision to voluntarily and fully intentionally engage in an argumentative discussion must be regarded as essential for the prospering of the resolution process. In his work, Paglieri defends that arguers ‘do not carelessly waltz into any potential dialectical confrontation, but on the contrary are very careful in picking their fights, often declining the opportunity to engage in argument’ (2013, p. 156). Discussants facing a disagreement outweigh the risks and potential benefits at stake when engaging in argumentative interaction. Campolo defends that effective reasoning is only available when there is a strong motivation underlying the argumentative exchange. This motivation, according to his view, is only present when ‘we are already engaged (or prepared to be engaged) together in some endeavor, and when that which interrupts us falls within the sphere of the competence we’re exercising or some other which we share’ (2005, p. 45). That is to say, as long as two participants are bound together to a certain goal of whatever kind, or are engaged into something that got interrupted or threatened, there is an answer to the question of why to argue. The obligation of reasoning together is thus tightly linked to a parties’ common end, and will act as the driving force in. 13.

(16) all the stages of the discussion and more precisely when participants1 face the diverse risks and obstacles embedded within the arguing process. Discussants are usually aware of the ‘costs’ of arguing, including the effort, emotional exposure or unwelcome consequences, such as the original disagreement escalating to other, often bigger issues (Paglieri, 2013, p. 158). For all these reasons, it is safe to assume that the willingness of the participants to engage in a critical discussion is the first mandatory step for the success of a dispute resolution process. . Notwithstanding the commitment to jointly resolve the dispute, participants remain free to. withdraw from it at any time, as part of the external condition of ‘freedom’ observed in the ideal model of a critical discussion. They might choose to concede to the opponent’s standpoint, to cut short the discussion, to shelve the issue or postpone it, etc. according to what are the potential factors which can justify a prolonged discussion of the same matter with the same interlocutor. The characteristic deviations of deep disagreements from the ideal model of dispute resolution as described in the previous section make it almost unavoidable that the discussion will extend to a prolonged amount of time, until the respective aim of each of the stages of the ideal model can be fulfilled and participants can successfully proceed in their argumentative exchange. In this section, I will deepen into the particular features of deep disagreements that endanger the upholding of procedural beliefs, even when participants are ready and willing to engage in a critical discussion and the higher order conditions of a critical discussion are met.. In the context of a deep disagreement, two aspects become important to notice regarding the. resolution process: the probable development of the discussion and its timing. Several authors, including Phillips and Paglieri, defend the thesis that duration strongly affects the willingness to argue (Phillips, 2008, p. 100; Paglieri, 2013, p. 160). According to the latter, ‘the quality of the argument is likely to predict the arguer’s intention to continue it: if an argumentative exchange is perceived as productive […] it stands to reason that both parties will be willing to keep at it; if, on the contrary, the argument is experienced as pointless, frustrating, circular, etc., the arguers will be ready to abandon it at the first chance’ (2013). The procedural commitments and material starting points agreed upon in the opening stage of the discussion find their mission precisely in avoiding the discussion to become pointless, frustrating and circular. In the previous section, I studied the important role that the stages of a critical discussion have in an attempt to resolve a difference of opinion on the merits, since their respective aims work to maximally direct an argumentative exchange to a rational resolution. In a case of deep disagreement, the goal of the opening stage has in principle not been achieved due to the most defining characteristic of this type of difference of opinion: the lack of a shared background of. 1. Note that in this research, participants are regarded as ‘naive social actors’ with no extraordinary argumentative skills or dispute resolution theoretical knowledge. The dispute of a deep disagreement by participants of such profile would require an entirely different sort of research.. 14.

(17) material and procedural beliefs. In like manner, the aims of the confrontation, argumentation and concluding stage are not attained. As a result of this, the probable duration of a discussion characterized by a state of deep disagreement is lengthened in time. In addition, the alleged lack of extraordinary argumentative skills of the participants, as ordinary language users, together with the delicacy of the propositions at stake (the material beliefs which are being subjected to rational scrutiny) are the elements that compromise the maintenance of the procedural commitments along the resolution process.. Empirical evidence in the literature (Paglieri, 2013) suggests that duration and entanglement. in the context of an argumentative exchange develops into certain undesirable consequences which strongly hinder the upholding of rational procedural commitments, even when they have been agreed upon by the parties. Firstly, discussants quickly tire of being opposed and become increasingly resentful towards their opponent, a phenomenon known as ‘cognitive fatigue’ and ‘emotional strain’ (Paglieri, 2013, p. 159). Besides, participants exploring the initial disagreement without finding any solution will easily change their perception of their opponent and his standpoint. In other words, ‘prior to argument, the parties were in a situation of respectful disagreement (“We have different views”), but once the issue has been debated in details without reaching any consensus, the arguers find themselves in a condition of stubborn disagreement (“You will not listen to reason!”)’ (Paglieri, 2013, p. 159). The tendency to blame the lack of progress in the opponent’s unwillingness to listen or incapability to understand the reasons that are being advanced threatens the rationality of the discussion and thus the following of the proposed rules for a critical discussion. From the perspective of the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies occur as deviations of these rules of conduct that hinder the resolution process. . Furthermore, parties who do not find any common ground in their discussion -as it is the case. in deep disagreements- will inexorably prolong the debate to a great extent, which translates into a low expectation for a positive conclusion. The same researches show how first, by having to repeatedly defend their respective positions against criticisms and objections, ‘the arguers become more and more entrenched in their views, hence less willing to accept alternative standpoints or compromises (radicalization)’ (Plagieri, 2013, p. 160). In addition, ‘the very fact that the arguers have been discussing for a long time over the same issue is taken as evidence that further debate is futile and no satisfactory conclusion will ever be achieved, and once this conviction is in place, it acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy (disillusion)’ (Paglieri, 2013, p. 160). In short, the discussants’ willingness to disengage from the argument will grow as the discussion progresses when the characteristics of a deep disagreement apply.. Thus far I have argued that on condition that parties are willingly ready to engage in an. argumentative exchange and commit to maintain a standard of reasonableness there is room for. 15.

(18) productive argumentation in deep disagreements. In the context of this research, the standard of reasonableness is the commitment and readiness to proceed according to the standards of a critical discussion. Both requirements (willingness and commitment) are a prerequisite for any attempt to rationally resolve a deep disagreement. In this thesis, I suggest that together they are sufficient to address the problem of the lack of shared material beliefs. They are complementary: firstly, willingness and reasonableness translate into the effort of reaching agreement on certain procedural commitments towards a resolution of a deep disagreement. On the other hand, procedural commitments will lead the way in the argumentative exchange with regards to the material beliefs involved in the conflict.. In this chapter, my goal has been to find a path for prolific and fruitful argumentation in deep. disagreements which could lead the parties to a resolution, to the extent that is possible, of a deep disagreement. I have pointed at one by means of the distinction between procedural and material beliefs. Moreover, I acknowledged the inherent difficulties of maintaining the requirements of willingness and reasonableness among parties in such a context. I found that the characteristics of deep disagreements might negatively influence the upholding of the procedural commitments that parties might have agreed upon in the opening stage of the discussion. Besides, it has become clear that the fulfillment of all other aims of the stages of a critical discussion is at risk. The next step in this research is to examine the possibilities of mediation as the proposed starting point to overcome the outlined difficulties: a third-party intervention who can prevent any derailments from the reasonable and controlled exchange of arguments in a discussion characterized by a state of deep disagreement.. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. 16.

(19) 3 The role of mediation in dispute resolution. ! !. 3.1 Tasks of the mediator in dispute resolution. !. So as to be able to determine in what respect the figure of a mediator can positively intervene in the resolution process of a deep disagreement, it is mandatory to first explore what is the role of a mediator in overall dispute resolution from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Previously, I have studied the phenomenon of deep disagreement under the perspective of this theory. A close analysis to the features of deep disagreements in terms of the ideal model of a critical discussion has shown that discussants involved in a dispute of such type find inevitable barriers in their path to resolution, which under the pragma-dialectical light find their reflection in the impossibility to proceed according to the model guidelines. These guidelines include the attainment of the aims of the stages and the following of the rules of a critical discussion. In this chapter, I will investigate the mediator’s functions and responsibilities in relation with these model guidelines.. Mediation, as a type of dispute intervention aside from the context in which it occurs, can be. generally defined as a ‘third party assistance to people who are trying to reach agreement in a controversy’ (Pruitt & Kressel, 1989, as quoted in Walker & Daniels, 1995, p. 695). Mediation promotes a problem-solving negotiation in a wide variety of types, structures and techniques, that seeks a joint, mutually agreed conclusion among disputants. Most scholars in the literature seem to agree that despite the distinct forms it adopts, mediation has three defining elements: it is an assistance or some form of interaction by a third party who does not have the authority to impose an outcome (Wall et al., 2001, p. 375). In this sense, mediation is different to the phenomenons of arbitration or legal adjudication in that the mediator has no authority to resolve the case or argue for or against it, but it serves only to facilitate a discussion in which disputants persist themselves for their own agreement. ‘Rather than shifting the functions of advocacy and judgement to other parties (e.g., attorneys, judges, arbitrators), mediation attempts to implement a process (via the mediator) whereby disputants can effectively engage in these functions themselves’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 119).. The diversity of techniques that a third party employs for the pursuit of agreement is vast in. the literature. For instance, mediators can approach the dispute with threats or punishment, they can use personal power or authority to press an agreement, or rely on personal resources, such as compensations, to win over one or both parties. In addition, mediators can apply a wide range of techniques and mediation models in their activity, with different emphasis: educating or advising the disputants, determining negotiable points, or encouraging argumentative progress and concessions (Wall et. al, 2001, p. 375). Overall, ’the mediator can help the parties to develop new norms and assist. 17.

(20) them in implementing their agreement’ towards the achievement of the objective (Wall et. al, 2001, p. 375). . From the broad phenomenon that mediation is, it is precisely the last type of third-party. intervention (encouraging argumentative progress) that I am interested in for the purpose of this research. In the context of this thesis, two parties are engaged in a dispute whose resolution arise certain problems; hence, they seek assistance of a third party who will adopt the role of a ‘dispute settler’ and will become an outer active figure acting as a mediator. The third-party role in this context necessarily becomes focal for the dispute resolution process, since the reasoning of the parties involved in the dispute and the issues of the matter are filtered through his figure. The sort of mediation this research treats is mediation when it is applied within the context of the model of a critical discussion. Jacobs and Aakhus treat this type of mediation, in opposition with other models such as negotiation (bargaining seeking) or therapeutic discussion, as a framework for the mediator rationale which conforms an ideal model of mediation as an activity type. Even though they admit mediators usually ‘mix and move among these models within any session’, each of the models is associated with a ‘characteristic kind of communication activity that is based on a distinctive understanding of the nature of the conflict and the most rational way to proceed to resolve the conflict’ (2002, p. 185). The utilization of the mediation model related to the ideal of a critical discussion relies on the fulfillment of certain characteristics in the difference of opinion that is being dealt with. Firstly, the source of conflict must be a disagreement over facts and values rather than a clash between competing interests, as it would be the case in the negotiation type of mediation. Secondly, the desired outcome ought to be the claim that is most consistent with available facts and values, instead of pursuing a proposal beneficial to both parties. Thirdly, the process of resolution should involve argumentation and refutation instead of offers, bargains and the like (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 185). If these features are absent from the context of the dispute, other types of mediation are in place, with entirely different responsibilities.. Mediation of the type I study typically goes through four phases: issue identification,. generation and evaluation of alternatives, selection of an alternative and development of an implementation plan (Ingleby, 1991, as quoted in Maley, 1995, p. 103). In this sense, mediation characteristically relates to the four stages of the ideal model of a critical discussion. . In the confrontation stage of the ideal model, the aim is the correct identification of the. source(s) of disagreement which form the dispute. In this stage, the mediator’s role is to steer the topic at hand and ensure the proper understanding of what is being discussed by the participants. For instance, by reframing the issue in a more specific way or formulating certain premises as problematic that had not been apparent to the discussants before. The mediator attempts ‘to ensure that the matter is negotiated and settled before the next topic is raised’ (Maley, 1995, p.105). . 18.

(21) . In the opening stage, the material starting points and procedural commitments are agreed. upon participants in order to lay the basis for the subsequent argumentation stage. This is the common ground necessary for discussion. Correspondingly, the mediator intervening in the discussion conducts an overlook of the available alternatives for the resolution of the dispute and selects that one or those ones that are more suitable in relation with the concrete characteristics of the conflict. In pragmadialectical terms, the mediator ensures that parties commit to certain procedural beliefs which will act as guidelines in the subsequent steps of the discussion. In addition, the need for shared material starting points among discussants is addressed by the mediator’s efforts to reframe the issue in such a way that the space of disagreement is reduced as much as possible.. In the argumentation stage, arguments for and against the standpoint at issue are advanced. and tested. The mediator’s main functions in this stage involve precisely the implementation and maintenance of the procedural commitments agreed upon in the previous stage. Mediators are expected to intervene in such a way that their ultimate goal is to improve the quality of arguments and to guide the argumentation in the most productive way possible. This task includes the identification of explicit and implicit argumentation, the analysis and evaluation of argumentation schemes, the prevention and impediment of fallacies and the request of explanation, evidence, reasoning and counterarguments when necessary (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 185). . In the concluding stage, an agreement concerning the acceptability of the proposition at issue. would be the desired outcome. In this stage, the mediator seeks for an ’act of agreement by both parties to some particular assertion that is based on their conviction that the asserted claim is correct’ (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 186).. In mediation, participants are empowered to solve the dispute themselves, with the mediator. acting solely as a facilitator. In this respect, mediation respects the resolution of the disagreement on the merits, as the model of a critical discussion pretends, since his intervention is not and cannot be ‘authoritative or decisive; it is tentative, hedged: a set of moralized suggestions’ (Maley, 1995, p. 104). Mediators in the context of a critical discussion have a ‘very high degree of control over the process of mediation, less control over substance and no authoritative control at all over outcomes’ (Maley, 1995, p. 104). In other words, to a great extent the mediator’s role is to control the process of the dispute; his main task being keeping the discussion on track and relevant to the agenda that has been set. (Maley, 1995, p. 104). In a critical discussion, disputants attempt to resolve their differences of opinion by advancing arguments for and against their positions, testing the quality of those arguments and arriving at a conclusion regarding the acceptability of a standpoint based on the merits of the arguments made. In this sense, the ‘mediator contributions should draw attention to forms of fallacious reasoning and prevent disputants from shifting the discussion toward other types of discussion, such as quarreling’ (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 184). The mediator intervenes in the. 19.

(22) dispute in order to avoid what would happen when discussants are left ‘unrestricted’: ‘disputants may get lost in squabbles, personal recriminations, and unresolvable differences of opinion that sidetrack discussion and block progress’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 119). These are thus the tasks of the mediator involving the upholding of procedural commitments among discussants. . In addition, the mediator’s contributions should also ‘draw out the argument potential in. disputant messages so that the disputants can pursue the resolution of their conflict through reasoned discussion grounded in common values and acceptable evidence’ (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 184). This statement implies that the duties of the mediator go beyond the mere influence on the dispute process and involve as well the use of dialectical reconstruction in the pragma-dialectical sense. In the context of this research, this means extracting the argumentative force of the participant’s interventions while omitting those instances which do not contribute to the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, mediators can also make a contribution to the content or substance of the dispute, but their contribution will always be ‘tentative, inexplicit and indirect: mediators interpret, reframe and reformulate the propositions advanced by the participants as their tools for resolution progress’ (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 184). While mediators cannot argue for or against the disputants’ standpoints, they can use certain argumentative strategies directed at the content of the discussion aimed at moving it along. These are the tasks of the mediator that involve the material substance of the argumentation exchange.. In real argumentative discourse certain problems arise in comparison with the ideal model of. a critical discussion. The main challenge mediators face in managing mediation with the model of a critical discussion as the rationale is that the arguments advanced by one party rarely lead to concessions of the other party. ’Where a value is advanced by one party in defense of a position, it is often deflected by a counterbalancing value advanced by the other party’ (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 190). Likewise, when a party justifies certain argument by the appealing of facts, those facts might not be accepted by the other party. Also, when mediators intervene to critically examine the basis for a position which has been proved to be weak, discussants might be simply unwilling to accept the force of that conclusion and they will shift to the addition of new grounds for their position or the plain returning of previously dropped positions (Jacobs & Aakhus, 2002, p. 190). With respect to this matter, the mediator’s task is to solve the problems of translating the ideal model into actual practice, where the circumstances of dispute are far from ideal. According to the pragma-dialectical view on mediation, ‘mediators must respect the voluntary participation of the parties, but they may have to overcome the resistance of one or both parries to consensus decision making’ (Van Eeemeren et al., 1993, p. 118). . So far I analyzed the role of the mediator within the theoretical background of pragma-. dialectics, researching how the diverse responsibilities of a third party relate with the four stages of a. 20.

(23) critical discussion and their respective aims. Also, I have analyzed how the other mediators’ main responsibility is to keep the discussion on track and as productive as possible, as well as encouraging the reaching of agreement by contributing both to the process and the content of the discussion. In the next section, I will explore three argumentative techniques available to the mediator in the pursuit of these goals.. ! !. 3.2 Argumentative techniques in mediation . !. The activity of mediation is an effort to make communication possible and fruitful when this communication occurs under specially challenging circumstances. Aakhus describes this process as an instance of communication design, where ‘there is an intervention into some ongoing activity through the invention of techniques, devices, and procedures that aim to redesign interactivity and thus shape the possibilities for communication’ (Aakhus, 2007, p. 112). The need of mediation appears because of the contrast between the ideal nature of the model of a critical discussion and the empirical reality of actual dispute. In the context of this research, this translates into the characteristic deviations of discussions characterized by a state of deep disagreement from the ideal model of a critical discussion. These deviations are prototypical of this type difference of opinion and are caused by the features by which deep disagreements, as a specific kind of disagreement, are defined.. For the purpose of ‘enforcing argumentative ideals within actual practice’ (Van Eemeren et. al., 1993, p. 120), mediation utilizes certain techniques which aim at making use of preferred forms of interactivity among discussants and avoid non preferred forms which jeopardize the goal of resolution. Three main techniques will be discussed in this section: dissociation and definition, formulations and reformulations, and questions. In this chapter, I argue that these three mediator’s tools have great argumentative importance within the activity of mediation, because they can prove to help in the fulfillment of the different aims of the four stages of a critical discussion.. The concept of dissociation, which was first introduced by Perelman and Olbrechts -Tyteca,. plays a crucial role in the mediator’s task of reducing the space of disagreement among discussants. Dissociation describes the procedure by means of which mediators make a differentiation between two distinct meanings of unequal value out of a single term. Van Rees, in line with other authors, claims its ‘argumentative potential is based on the fact that two concepts resulting from the separation of the original notion are portrayed as non-equivalent: the one is represented as more important or more essential than the other’ (Van Rees, 2005, p. 383). This way, the technique of dissociation allows the mediator to ‘de-construct’ a term and ‘re-construct’ it, a procedure by means of which he creates a new and fresh meaning to the word which redefines or modifies the participant’s experience of the. 21.

(24) world (Van Rees, 2005, p. 383). The concept of dissociation is bound to the performance of two speech acts: a distinction (a unitary concept is split up into two different notions) and a definition, in which the exact meaning of one or both notions is made explicit (Muraru, 2012b, p. 339). Dissociation, described in this sense, can be used in the context of this research with regards to the most important concepts underlying a certain difference of opinion so as to create a common ground from which argumentation is made possible. These keywords have a special function in argumentative discourse, since they provide the link to the parties’ context and shared values - what the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation refers to as the material starting points of argumentation. Interlocutors in a dispute might not be aware of their shared knowledge in a given dispute, specially when they are involved in a discussion which is not happening under ideal conditions. However, the use of keywords and the technique of dissociation and definition can activate certain frames (according to what the mediator considers as more favorable to the resolution process) which might be crucial to the construction of subsequent argumentative moves. In this sense, the mediator integrates elements of the parties’ framings into the favored redefinition, ‘preserving but also eliminating particular aspects from the disputants’ initial definitions’ (Muraru, 2012b, p. 359). It is the mediator’s task to select from the potential definitions that might be given to a certain term those which reunite the common elements of the two sides, reducing the space of disagreement among discussants.. The argumentative technique of formulations and reformulations enables the mediator to. clarify the disputants’ position and redefine the disagreement space. Mediators use this technique for informative and procedural purposes, such as clarifying positions, identifying points of agreement and disagreement, summarizing what has been achieved until a certain point, etc (Van Eeemeren et al., 1993, p.120). Moreover, this technique can be used as well to meet the mediator’s rhetorical goal of conducting the discussion towards resolution, by redefining the disagreement space among discussants by means of reshaping their positions. By reformulating the disputants’ standpoints and starting points and by reframing their positions, the mediator aims at minimizing the parties’ space of disagreement. In this way, the third-party intervention attempts to establish a communication link between the discussants by giving a new category to a certain issue: the mediator ‘reorganizes the information that the parties posses so as to bring out and isolate the points and areas of common interest of the two disputants’, which facilitates the creation of a common definition of the problem, acceptable to both parties (Muraru, 2012b, p. 351). By doing so, the mediator increases the potential for productive argumentation. With the help of this technique, the mediator ‘can manage the substantive character and argumentative force of a discussion without entering into the discussion as an advocate’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 120).. The technique of reformulation involves various activities, including paraphrasing,. summarizing, repetition and restatement. These activities serve to meet the goal of both clarifying the. 22.

(25) issues at stake in the early stages of a critical discussion as well as the goal of reducing the space of disagreement among discussants. All together, they assist with the mediator’s task of reconstructing the argumentative exchange of the parties in order to encourage productive argumentation and disregard the parties’ moves which do not contribute to the resolution of the dispute. These activities as a whole involve repeating a position stated by a disputant in an extended or condensed manner, so as to explain and clarify the issues which arise the fundamental differences of opinion and thus must be addressed. They are employed with the double aim of emphasizing the importance of a certain matter while preserving the original version of the parties, which also helps to preserve the impartiality of the mediator. If the mediator changes some of the words used by a party, it is possible to talk about the ‘detoxification procedure’, by means of which the mediator erases the value-laden of a certain expression into a more neutral phrasing in order to encourage the finding of common ground among the disputants (Muraru, 2012b, pp. 335 - 342).. Finally, the argumentative technique of questions finds their goal in raising issues and opening. up possible standpoints. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, ‘through lines of questioning the mediator may get the respondent to commit to answers that could serve as common premises for arriving at some conclusion’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 126). In this sense, the mediator encourages the parties to make assertions which serve an argumentative purpose. Questions can also be used to request further elaboration on an advanced argument, to demand defense of a certain standpoint that has been put forward, and so on. Similarly, the mediator can use questions to elicit concessions in a direct manner, either by pointing out flaws in a specific argument, bringing about a contradiction, forcing a party to reconsider a criticism made by the opponent, etc (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 126). In this sense, questions assist the mediator in his task of enhancing the argumentative force of the discussant’s moves, improving the quality of the argumentation advanced.. Along with the argumentative techniques of dissociation, (re)formulations and questions, the. mediator can make use of other forms of interventions aimed at the pursuing of optimal understanding among discussants. For example, when difficulties of interpretation or comprehension arise in the discussion, the mediator can provide or can request to be provided by the discussants what is referred to as ‘usage declaratives’, a concept that includes amplification, specification, explanation and definitions (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 156).. The mediator’s main goal when making use of the argumentative techniques described in this. section is to help discussants to proceed according to the ideal model’s guidelines for dispute resolution on the merits (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p.180). In this chapter, I have studied the specific role of the mediator in leading the parties towards a rational resolution of a dispute and three of the argumentative techniques available for that purpose. I defined the activity of mediation in relation with the ideal model of a critical discussion, pointing at the diverse responsibilities of the mediator in. 23.

(26) attaining the aims of every of the stages described in the model. In short, it can be said that the mediator’s objectives include, but are not limited to, the clarification of the issues at stake and the establishment of solid and unambiguous starting points consisting of intersubjectively accepted procedural and material beliefs. In the previous chapter, the lack of those was found to be the major obstacle in the resolution of a deep disagreement. In order to overcome this impediment, the mediator establishes procedural commitments, for whose maintenance he is also responsible along the process of discussion, while at the same time lays the material starting points that will help the parties to make concessions easily. This way, the mediator strategically diminishes the zone of disagreement among discussants and creates the necessary common ground for argumentation. Throughout the different stages of the discussion, the mediator will act as a ‘procedural guidance’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 139), intervening in the disputants’ exchange so as to stimulate the quality of the argumentation exchanged while avoiding derailments and negative contributions.. The next step in this research is to investigate how the mediator’s role fits within the context. of a deep disagreement and its particular problems. Now that the role of the mediator in dispute resolution has been clearly established in pragma-dialectical terms and the mediator’s argumentative techniques have been studied, I will investigate in the following chapter how they can serve to the mediator’s strategies to overcome the particular difficulties of discussions characterized by a state of deep disagreement.. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !. 24.

No results found