Argumentative Discourse in the Context of Social Protest: Documents of Demands as a Communicative Activity Type

(1)

Argumentative Discourse in the Context of

Social Protest:

Documents of Demands as a Communicative Activity Type

Jorge F. Durán Solórzano

Master’s Thesis

RMa Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory, and Philosophy

Supervisor: dr. H.J. Plug

Second reader: dr. A.F. Snoeck Henkemans

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

i

Argumentative Discourse in the Context of Social Protest

Abstract

In the context of social protest protesters address documents in which they make claims and demands towards the target of the protest. These documents, more often than not, are published in order to put public pressure on the target of the protest by means of exposing its wrongs to third parties. In this regard, protest is a complex indirect process in which protesters aim to change or prevent a change of a policy, law or situation. This multi-party situation can be reconstructed as a discussion in which the protesters try to convince third parties to support their claims and demands. In this research I give an argumentative characterization of documents of demands used by protesters to issue their demands. I take the pragma-dialectical ideal model of critical discussion and the notion of strategic maneuvering to reconstruct documents of demands in argumentative terms. Moreover, I analyze how protesters present their claims adapting them to the audience demands of third parties. Finally, I illustrate this characterization with the case of the Ogoni Bill of Rights as a speech event of documents of demands in which the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People issued their demands against the government of Nigeria and Shell and appealed to the international community,

(6)

(7)

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor dr. H.J Plug for her always useful advice and for all her patience. I deeply appreciate her academic and non-academic support during this research project. Her encouraging comments were really important to me.

I would also like to thank dr. A.F. Snoeck Henkemans for her wise and enlightening advice during these two years

I would like to thank all my teachers of the Department of Speech Communication,

Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric that shared their knowledge during these two years in the lectures room and in the monthly colloquiums.

I would like to thank Cody Orth for helping me as a proof reader and for his useful

correction, and I want to thank Emma van Bijnen for her useful comments.

I would like to thank my parents and my brother for their support and for always being there. I am also deeply thanked to my aunts Caty and Coco who have always encouraged and supported me to pursue my academic career.

I would like to thank my friends who made this experience in the Netherlands a unique one. Finally I would like to thank Anna for all her support in this experience.

(8)

(9)

v

In the last decades extensive research has been done into the argumentative discourse in the political domain. In their research, argumentation scholars have concentrated on how policies and public issues are raised, criticized and defended in the light of different institutional contexts. A major part of the analyses of these research has focused either on top-to-top discourse of political elites, such as general debates between members of parliaments (Andone 2015; van Eemeren & Garssen 2010; and Plug 2010), or on top-down discussions, such as presidential debates aimed to gain potential voters (Zarefsky 2009). Within the same domain, but from the bottom-up, i.e., from the civil society trying to influence policy-making, the focus has been put on the rhetorical aspects of speeches by leaders of social movements. However, little focus has been paid to other types of events in this level of the domain.1

Zarefsky (1977), from a rhetorical perspective, pointed out a number of problems regarding the study of the argumentative discourse of social movements and groups of the civil society (371-3). In his analysis of the rhetoric of three establishment movements of the War on Poverty that took place in the United States during the sixties he concludes with three remarks. Firstly, Zarefsky considers it to be necessary to have a clear distinction between a

social movement and a rhetorical movement, as the latter may include behavior that it is not

covered by the former. The second point made by Zarefsky is that a rhetorical definition of social movement is necessary, since social movements are in essence rhetorical. Lastly, Zarefsky notes that the study of the rhetoric of social movements requires a more sophisticated analysis.

In years that followed Zarefsky’s 1977 paper, the study of social movements has been developed, making it possible to give a solution to the first two problems. Firstly, the notion of social movement is more or less clear. Nowadays the study of social movements counts with specialized journals, book series, and professional associations that give a more or less clear account of what social movements are (Della Porta & Diani 2006: 1). Secondly, although social movements are not necessarily rhetorical in essence, rhetoric and argumentative discourse play an essential role in their practices. Zarefsky’s third remark has,

1

Among the few scholars who have done some research in this level focused on argumentative discourse are Lewinsky (2010) and Andone (2013) from a pragma-dialectical perspective, Zarefsky (1977) from a rhetorical perspective, and Manolescu (2005a, 2005b, 2007) from a normative pragmatic approach.

(12)

2

arguably, not received sufficient attention. While many rhetorical analyses have been given of the discourse by social movements, these analyses concern isolated case studies which remark on some rhetorical or argumentative aspects of that discourse. Moreover, this type of discourse has not been analyzed in a way that takes the institutional goals and contextual constraints of other speech events into consideration aside from speeches of famous leaders of social movements.

I suggest that the problem of making a more sophisticated analysis of the rhetoric of social movements may be overcome by means of the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering (van Eemeren, 2010). Taking these notions as a starting point, it can be given a good account of not only the rhetorical elements of argumentative discourse used in protests, but also its dialectical parts. By mean of identifying the communicative domain, genre of communication, and characterizing some of the speech events happening in the context of social protest it is possible to make a more sophisticated analysis of the communicative practices used in the context of social movements. Additionally, characterizing these speech events will allow for a better understanding of how social movements maneuver strategically and how they exploit their contextual opportunities in the way they argue.

1.2 General Aims and Structure of This Project

The aim of this research is to develop a theoretical framework to analyze how argumentative discourse is used by social movements and groups of the civil society in the context of protest. The leading question of this project is what are the main characteristics of

argumentative discourse in the context of social protest?

To analyze the argumentative discourse in this context I will use the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation. Moreover, I will use strategic maneuvering analysis to see how arguers adapt their discourse to cope with the constraints imposed by the context. I will pay special attention to the adaptation of the protesters’ discourse to the audience demands.

In chapter 2, I will define what protesting is and what its institutional goal is. Furthermore, I will specify who the main actors that play a role in this activity are, and how the very interaction between actors constrains the discourse of the protesters. To establish this, I will take insights from Political Process theory and Contentious Politics (Della Porta & Diani 2006; Tarrow, 2015). This will aid the understanding of the multi-party situation that often exists in the activity of protesting.

(13)

3

In chapter 3, I will give a general characterization in argumentative terms of one speech event that is common in the context of protests, namely, documents of demands. It is good to point out that documents of demands are not an established genre of communication. I regard documents of demands in this research as an umbrella term covering different conventionalized means of communication used by protesters. Among these means it is possible to find press releases, newsletters, declarations, appeals, collective petitions, among many others. Moreover, through these means, protesters issue their demands to a certain institution, and also they address third parties to get their support. Using the term documents

of demands in this particular way will help to establish a general overview of what type of

argumentative elements protesters use to achieve their goal of making acceptable their demands. For the characterization in argumentative terms I will use the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation.

In chapter 4, I will illustrate the characterization given in chapter 3 by analyzing a particular document of demands. I will focus on the way protesters adapt their demands according to the constrains imposed by the multi-party situation of social protests. I will determine how protesters maneuver strategically to adapt their claims to the audience demands.

Finally, in chapter 5, I will report my findings and make suggestion regarding further research.

(14)

(15)

5

CHAPTER 2 Protesting: Institutional Goal in a Multi-party Situation

The aim of this chapter is to determine the main institutional constraints to some of the speech events taking place within the activity of protesting. As a case of those speech events, I will take documents issued by the protesters where they state their demands. To that end, it will be necessary to determine the institutional goal of protesting and its participants. In order

to have a clear picture of the goals of social protest I will take Michael Lipsky’s (1969) model as a starting point, which explains the activity of protesting as a political process focusing on the interaction between actors and the mobilization of material, political, and legal resources. I will take some insights from Contentious Politics (Della Porta & Diani, 2006; Tarrow, 2015) to complement Lipsky’s model. Particularly I will complement Lipsky’s (1969) notion of relatively powerless groups. Both approaches consider protests as political complex interactional process. Using these two models will be useful in order to capture the main elements of the process of protesting, and it will give us some insights to understand the institutional goal of this activity. Knowing these elements will also allow us to grasp the communicative practices taking place within the context of protesting and, specifically, to characterize the argumentative discourse employed there.

Two questions will lead this chapter: 2.1) What is the institutional goal of protesting? and 2.2) How does the interaction between participants playing a role in the activity of

protesting constrain the speech events in that activity? I will proceed by explaining what is a

protest, what the main interactional features between parties participating in the process are, and, in addition, I will highlight some of the argumentative discussions that may be found in such interactions.

2.1 Protesting and its Institutional Goal

Throughout history protests have influenced society to modify norms, conventions, policies and laws that were perceived as unfair by some groups, e.g., the extension of voting rights, the establishment of welfare state, and the development of union rights (Liberty & NUS 2011). In a more local setting, protests have been used to claim institutional changes, like in the case of the protests during the eighties held by inmates in Maze Prison, Ireland, or the protests to stop racism in universities of the United States including Harvard, Yale, UCLA and other eighty-three universities nowadays.2

2

(16)

6

The general activity of protesting can be understood as an organized public action expressing objection to an official policy, law, rule or situation affecting a group of people (Lipsky 1969: 2). These objections are generally externalized by a claim or set of claims that can be dubbed protest demands (Della Porta and Diani 2006: 176). Additionally, protesting is composed of different episodes in which several types of events take place around those demands. These episodes include from negotiations to direct (non)violent action (Tarrow 2014). When a protest is not a single event but a compound of episodes revolving around a set of demands we can refer to it as protest campaign (Wada 2004).

Although the most popular conception of protest is marches and demonstrations (Liberty & NUS 2011), this activity can also take the form of public meetings, non-cooperation, civil disobedience, sit-ins, or even violent confrontations.3 Within these episodes many speech events, such as public speeches, collective petitions, newsletters, political advertorials, propagandistic leaflets, on-line campaigns, among many others (Klimova 2006: 112), will be instrumental to the actors in the protest to achieve their goals.

How these and other speech events are performed will be influenced by several social conventions that can be more or less institutionalized in the form of implicit and explicit norms (van Eemeren 2010). These conventions allow members of the community to recognize certain activities and practices. For instance, a demonstration by a group of workers for better working conditions can be regarded as a more or less institutionalized practice recognizable to the people involved in that activity and bystanders.

An example of an explicit rule in the general activity of protest can be the requirement from the protesters to notify the police in advance about their rally (Liberty &NUS 2011). Equally speaking, it is an explicit rule that demonstrators should not disturb the public order, and that doing otherwise can imply a confrontation with the police or possible legal repercussions. On the side of the demonstrators, they will be backed, for instance, by human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly (Liberty & NUS 2011; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19 and 20.1). Despite of these rights, it could be the case that they clash with other laws or rules, causing debates such as what should be the restriction on freedom of speech.

According to van Eemeren, communicative practices are generally connected with specific kinds of institutional contexts, in which ‘they serve to accomplish the goal of the institution’(2010: 129). Moreover, in accordance with the different institutional requirements

3

For instance, Sharp (1973) found 198 different methods of nonviolent action, which some of them can be said are different methods of protesting.

(17)

7

of the institution,4 different kinds of conventionalized communicative practices are developed in the various communicative domains to achieve the institutional goal of the domain. In some cases, ‘the conventions ruling a particular communicative practice consist of fully explicit constitutive and regulative rules’ (van Eemeren 2010: 140). In other cases, the conventions consist of rules that are implicit but that can be derived from established practices (van Eemeren 2010: 140).

In the case of protesting, although there are explicit rules restricting the speech events happening in this context, such as punishing hate speech (Liberty &NUS 2011), many others are largely implicit. However, they become manifest in the interaction between the parties of the protest. Analyzing how parties involved in the process adapt their discourse to the other parties can give us some idea of the conventions ruling the activity. In this regard, by having a more or less clear picture of these interactions, it will be possible to elucidate some of those implicit rules and conventions. However, before discussing those interactions it is important to define what the institutional goal of protesting is, and how speech events taking place within this domain are instrumental to achieve its institutional goal.

What is then the institutional goal of protesting? Della Porta & Diani (2006) point out that according to the principles of representative democracy, the decisions of a government can be challenged immediately by the parliamentary opposition or punished subsequently by the voting choices of citizens in elections. However, they add, ‘especially since the 1960s and on, a bigger set of political participation have been added to the civil society repertory’ (165). These repertories and the increasing number of citizens recurring to them, confer legitimacy to other forms to put pressure on governments and institutions (Della Porta & Diani 2006: 166). Additionally, when faced with laws or decisions considered unjust, citizens may adopt forms of action that challenge those established norms (Della Porta & Diani 2006: 166).

Although citizens have these repertories, they are ‘outside’ the formal institution where decisions are made. This implies that they cannot change the institutional processes directly. In this regard, by means of those repertories, including protesting, they can influence those processes by persuading or coercing the politicians who directly participate in these processes. In this line, Schmidt (2006) suggests that in the same way that political elites manage politics from the top, social movements are significant forces from the ‘bottom-up’ in

4

Here I follow the idea of institution used in van Eemeren (2010) who, relying on Searle (1995) and the New Institutionalism (March & Olsen 1984; Hall and Taylor1996), sees it as the system for dealing with rights and duties characterized by socially constructed rules and their associated sanctions.

(18)

8

the building of politics. Social movements, she points out, ‘are best characterized as part of the communicative discourse because they are at least initially removed from the policy world, and rely on pressure from the outside, through media coverage of their protests and actions, rather than from the inside, to influence policies’(104).

It could be said then that protesting is instrumental to fulfill the institutional point of giving civil society the means to influence decision-making processes, and to help enhance democratic values within an institution. In the same way, speech events happening within the activity of protesting will be instrumental to that goal. Therefore, discourse and argumentative discourse will also serve to help achieve this goal.

Having this goal in mind we can take a look at the different interactions taking place within the activity of protesting in order to see how they, to some extent, constrain the speech events happening within the context of protesting.

2.2 Interactions between Actors in the Process of Protesting

In his book Protest in city politics (1969), Lipsky analyses the limitations inherent to social protests. He argues that protest is one of the few ways in which relatively powerless groups can produce bargaining resources to influence the institutional processes of decision-making. Lipsky (1969) comments on the notion of completely powerless groups and considers that these social groups are those that do not even have the resources to organize themselves. This can be due to extreme poverty, for instance, or highly conflictive ideological differences. Protest activity is defined in Lipsky’s study as ‘a mode of political action oriented towards objection to one or more policies or conditions, characterized by showmanship or display of an unconventional nature, and undertaken to obtain reward from the political or economic system, while working within the system’ (1969: 2). Additionally, he suggests that one of the goals of social protest is to activate third parties to enter to the implicit or explicit bargaining arena in ways favorable to the protesters. In other words, protesters will aim to influence decision-makers to change a certain institutional status quo in benefit of the protesting group, by appealing to third parties who can, at the same time, put some pressure on those decision-makers.

Underlying this notion of protest are the assumptions that protesting is an indirect collective activity, in which many actors play a role, and where disagreement and different degrees of cooperation are latent throughout the whole process (Lipsky 1969; Meyer & Evans

(19)

9

2014). Seen in this way, interaction between parties and the communication taking place between them will be important for the outcome of the protest.

In Lipsky’s approach, protest is an indirect activity since protesters are assumed to lack of enough resources (material, political or legal) to maintain a direct lobbying campaign. However, this can raise some criticism since nowadays several groups like unions, transnational nongovernmental organizations and big movements have resources to maintain that type of campaigns. Nevertheless, even though those groups may have resources, their influence on policy and decision-making processes will depend on external pressure on those in power, making these groups relatively powerless in comparison to those with a direct participation in the process (Della Porta & Diani 2006). This distinction of ‘outside-inside’ the institution may fill the gaps that Lipsky’s notion of powerless groups has.

In the process of protesting, there can be at least five major actors interacting at the same time or on a different moments of the process. Figure 1 illustrates the main actors and their possible interactions. These are, (A) protest constituents; (L) the leaders or representatives of the protest constituents; (B) the targeted institution toward the protest is aimed at; (C, D, E) communication media; and (F, G, H) third parties. In the next paragraphs I will explain the role of each actor and I will show how the relationship between them constrains the activity of protest and the speech events taking place there.

(20)

10

2.2.1 Protest Constituents, Leaders, and Targets

The protest constituents (A) are the group of people collectively gathered towards a common goal, typically characterized by a set of demands or claims, aimed to change, prevent or challenge a situation, law or policy. Between the people composing the constituents are the leaders of the protest (L). They play a crucial role in steering the protest and negotiations that take place within this process (Bob 2002b; Lipsky 1969). Additionally, the protest will be aimed at a target (B).

Although Lipsky's model is reduced to public agencies, it is possible to expand it and use it to explain protest against private companies or corporations. Balsinger (2014: 665), for instance, suggests that because nowadays firms are involved in activities that traditionally have been regarded as characteristically governmental activities, such as public health, education, and social security, they have become targets of protests. Additionally, private companies can be the target of protests because their practices affect other groups. Take for example the protests against First Majestic Silver, a Canadian silver mining company in Zacatecas, Mexico. The local indigenous population Wixarika protested against mining activities because silver extraction was destroying what they regard as their sacred land, Wirikuta (Frente en Defensa de Wirikuta, 2016).

One limitation regarding the relationship between constituents and leaders of protests is that the former has to organize the group and maintain its cohesion. This implies that leaders need to ‘nurture an organization comprised of people whom may or may not share common values’ (Lipsky 1969: 163). It could be the case that a group of people is affected by the same problem and decide to commit to the same goal, despite that they may have strong differences about other issues.

Another limitation of the group constituents is that not everyone will be committed to the protest to the same degree —some will be supporters and other will participate in the organization of the protest.5 This make sense if we consider, as Lipsky (1969: 166) suggests, that people involved in protest cannot be fully advocated to it since they have other activities in their lives.

In terms of an argumentative level, several discussions can be found within a group. Some of them can be used to define the goals of the protest, strategies, organizational basis,

5

A common distinction made by scholars is to characterize group constituents as moderates and

(21)

11

amongst many other things. Although the goal of forming the group and defining its objective

run parallel to the goal of protesting, it will be achieved by employing different communicative practices. Furthermore, while the discussions that take place between the constituents of the protests are going to be performed by individuals, and thus individual speech acts, the discussion between protesters and institution will be performed by means of collective speech acts.

This relation can be explained better if we consider the idea of collective speech acts developed by Meijers (2003). The felicity conditions for a speech act will be different when the speech act is performed by an ‘I’ agent rather than by a ‘we’ agent. The main constraint is that, as Meijers (2003:101) shows, collective intentionality cannot be reduced to the sum of ‘I’s, as Searle’s idea of speech act presupposes. Instead, collective speech acts include a set of commitments previously agreed on by the members of the collective, where all the members of the group rely on each other on what the other is going to do or say (Meijers 1994: 80)

In this regard, the discourse of the spokesperson of the protest will be restricted by the commitments that he or she has to the collective. However, his or her discourse is not going to be constrained by these commitments in internal discussions. Therefore, internal discussions are not going to be a direct part of the process of the activity of protesting. For this reason, I will focus only on the group-externalized speech events.

Considering that protesters form relatively powerless groups, which means that they cannot influence the decision-making processes of a certain institution directly, and that they lack sufficient material, political and legal resources necessary to that end, the question is how can they influence decision and policy-making processes? Here is where third parties enter into the process and play an important role.

2.2.2 Protesters and Third Parties

The way that protesters (A) can influence the target is by activating third parties (F, G, H). These parties can be the target’s (B) reference public, which includes higher institutional instances, public opinion, and other institutions of the same level. The pressure that a third party can exert will depend on the level of dependency between the target and third parties. If the target group is to a great extent independent from third parties, then the pressure can only be symbolic. Lipsky defines this as the vulnerability of the target. According to him ‘[t]arget vulnerability is a function of anticipation of the problems of maintaining or altering status, job or position. This formulation embraces the motives behind target group responses in the

(22)

12

short run and long run’ (1969: 179). Knowing the dependency of the target on other groups, and knowing to what extent these groups confer resources, legitimacy, and status to the target group is essential for protesters to exploit their opportunities to achieve their goals.

To illustrate the above mentioned, we can take as an example the case of a protest by a group of students demanding better decision-making processes at their university. They may try to activate third parties such as the Minister of Education, and try to make him or her take a stand in favor of the protest, which may or may not put some pressure on the university board to consider the students’ demands. Even if the university is not directly dependent on the Minister of Education, his or her very recognition of the protesters’ demands can put some pressure on the board by conferring legitimacy to the students. They may also try to activate the general public such as other members of the community, other students, and renowned public figures to support their cause and put some public pressure on the board. Likewise, in the case of protests against a state, protesters may appeal to international institutions such as nongovernmental organizations or other countries to intervene in the conflict.6 In addition to put pressure on the target, third parties can also provide social movements with material and organizational resources. This is specially the case with transnational western NGOs and relatively powerless groups in developing countries (Bob 2002b: 400).

In response to the reactions of third parties, or in anticipation to their reaction, the target of the protests can act in certain ways. These responses can be giving material or symbolic rewards (Lipsky 1969: 4). In the case of the former, it means that the demands of the protesters (or some of them) were granted and thus a structural change will occur (e.g. changing the internal decision-making processes of the university), while for the latter the reward will consist, for instance, on the appearance of the spokesperson of the board on television mentioning that the institution is concerned with the problem.7 Both types of reward are going to be important, however, the material rewards are the ultimate goal of the protesters.

It is good to keep in mind that in many cases supporting a social movement may have some consequences for third parties, especially if they are in high institutional positions.

6

In this case, recommendations, sanctions, invitations, among others, are examples of possible ways for third parties to put some pressure on the target.

7

Zarefsky (1977), from a rhetorical perspective defines this as a non-decision making strategy. This is a decision which blunts a challenge to the decision-makers’ interests and values. According to him, ‘This strategy is a means for suffocating demands for change before they gain wider spread public attention, thereby denying them a place in the public agenda’ (Zarefsky 1977: 359).

(23)

13

Using the same example of the students, if the Minister of Education fully supports the students and the board manages to discredit the students’ protest, then the Minister of Education can be affected too.

In the same line, it is possible to see how some social movements have to adapt their claims in order to fit with the demands of third parties. For example, in the nineties the Ogoni people in the Delta Niger protested for the political rights of minorities in a regime governed by an ethnic majority. Their main demand was political autonomy. After looking for the support of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and other major western NGOs, they did not manage to get their attention (Bob 2002b). When the Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiba emphasized their environmental problems, and re-framed the protest within this issue, particularly accusing Shell for the ecological destruction of Ogoniland, those major NGOs started to support the protest (Bob 2002a; Bob 2002b; Senewo 2015). It is clear from this that international NGOs are reserved when it comes to intervening in political conflicts, which may influence social movements to frame their demands in more neutral, ‘politically correct’, terms.

It is possible to question the extent to which protesters can go directly to the target without any participation of third parties. Let me use an example adapted from Lipsky (1969) in which fifty people go to the Mayor’s office to demand a better supply of drinking water in their community. It may be counterintuitive to think that they alone will have enough power to move the City Hall’s agenda to solve their problem since it may imply the mobilization of a large amount of resources and setting up a large project. But let us assume that that does happen, that the Mayor agrees, and that he is in the position to resolve the problem. Then what would be the difference between this situation and a request? None: Person (A) requests something, knowing that (B) can grant it, and (B) grants it8. In this way there is a fully cooperative setting where there is neither disagreement nor the impossibility to fulfil that request. In other words, it would be a direct resolution of the conflict (Meyer and Evans 2014).

On the contrary, assuming that the Mayor rejects the request because he believes that there are other problems that deserve more attention, or that the community is not big enough to be considered relevant, or that the community does not offer him a political benefit in the

8

In this sense, and from a speech act perspective, Klimova (2006: 119) points out that when we demand something we believe that what it is demanded is due to us, or rather that it is overdue. In other words, ‘an employee request a pay rise, but the union demands it’. Demands, in this sense, presuppose a shared understanding of right and wrong but suggests also a corrective effort. The other party, in Klimova’s words, ‘is asked to honor the obligations they have neglected’ (2006: 119).

(24)

14

future, how can the group put their issue on the public agenda and move the City Hall to take into consideration their case? One way is by protesting and appealing to a wider audience. The very exposure of the lack of commitment will imply some pressure on the Mayor. Now, if this audience is politically relevant for him, then there may be a greater chance for the protesters to put their problem on the public agenda.

It may be claimed then, that the lack of cooperation or incapacity of the authority to cope with a problem is one of the causes that mobilize people to protest. With this in mind, protest is a resource used when the institutional channels are deficient or when the institution itself blocks those channels to certain groups. In this regard, the activity of protest is instrumental to achieve a bigger institutional goal, namely promoting democratic practices.

From an argumentative perspective, it is possible to distinguish at least two discussions: one between the protesters and the target of the protest, and another discussion between the protesters and possible third parties. In this way, the protesters will challenge an official policy, law or situation attributable to the institution, while they will try to get some support of third parties to take a stand, get and maintain their support, provide resources, or confer legitimacy to the protesters. Therefore, it is possible to say that there is a protagonist and (at least) two antagonists. In the next chapter I will explain in detail how this complex setting influences the speech of the protesters.

2.2.3 Protesters and Communication Media

The relationship between protesters (A) and third parties (F, G, H) is not always direct and is often mediated by communication media (C, D, E).9 Here, public opinion can influence the process of the protest (Bob 2002a; Wisler & Giugni 1999; Wouters 2013). As Lipsky points out, ‘pressure on target groups will be directly related to the extent to which reference public (third parties) think target groups are united, vulnerable, and capable of responding positively to the protest demands. In this respect, the target group’s ability to manipulate communication media represents an important resource’ (Lipsky 1969: 180).

In the same way, how protesters relate and exploit their opportunities with communication media can be an important resource for them. Regarding this point, Della Porta & Diani (2006) consider the influence excreted by social movements and groups of the

9

In this research social media such as Facebook or Twitter are not considered. In order to do so it would be necessary to add another element to the model. However, due to the influential power that mainstream media still has nowadays, Lipsky’s model helps us to understand the different actors playing a role in the process of protesting.

(25)

15

civil society to be either positive or negative. This means that third parties may sympathize with their cause, or may feel threatened by the movement. According to them, ‘this is why the characteristic of the mass media, and of channels of communication in general, are particularly relevant for social movements: their capacity to address public opinion is indeed a crucial component of their action’ (Della Porta & Diani 2006: 167). In the case of small groups, media can make them visible to the public and win some support, or even manifest their very existence to the world (Bob 2002a: 36). How the public thinks about the protesting group can affected if the group gets the support of third parties. Moreover, to some extent media will confer legitimacy to the protesters.

It can be argued that protesters may appeal directly to third parties without the intervention of communication media. Although this can be the case, having a good media coverage can be essential to the protesters to appear on the radar of third parties and put some pressure on the target. Again, think of NGOs as third parties. They are limited by the type and amount of support that they can give to social movements. As such, protesters may have to ‘struggle’ among dozens of other groups for the support or recognition of third parties (Bob 2002a: 37). The same happens when protesters try to activate public opinion. Effective ‘marketing’ can help to amplify the reach of the message of the protesters and confer legitimacy to the movement, making them visible to the world (Bob 2002b).

From an argumentative perspective, the role of media would ideally be to inform. Nevertheless, since media has its own restrictions, interests, and agendas, it will play also a role in the discussion as a third party. Depending on how media think about the protesters, they may have to argue to keep that support or to defend their claims against possible criticisms.

So far I have shown that the process of protesting involves several actors. Furthermore, I have shown that protest is a resource that empowers people and allows them to influence decision-making processes of an institution. To that extent, protesting and the speech events that happen within the activity of protesting are instrumental to the institutional goal of preserving and enhancing democratic values. Within the protest group it is possible to find several discussions between its constituents. However, the goal of these discussions will be different from that of the goal of the protest itself. Outside the protest group, it will also be possible to find different discussion between actors. This multi-party situation constrains the speech events happening within the context of protesting in at least three different ways.

(26)

16

Firstly, the speech of the protest’s spokesperson is constrained by his or her commitments to the protesting group. Stating something dissonant to those commitments may have negative consequences for him or her, as well as for the group. Secondly, protesters need to adapt their discourse to the third parties’ framework of reference in order to get or maintain their support. Thirdly, they need to avoid saying things that the targets may use against them to illegitimate their cause or even to use violence against the protesters. In the next chapter I will establish some of the argumentative elements of the activity type of documents of demands in the context of protest. I will focus on the type of discussions that can be found in documents of demands, the argumentative means used in these documents, and the possible outcomes of the discussions in this context. In addition, I will show how protesters maneuver strategically to cope with some of the constraints already mentioned in this chapter.

(27)

17

CHAPTER 3 Argumentation in the Context of Protest

In this chapter I will characterize documents of demands as an activity type in the context of protest. These documents cover collective petitions, newsletters, press releases, appeals, among others, issued by protesters. I will use the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion to show how the multi-party situation that is characteristic of protesting implies some constraints regarding protester's discourse, in this case, to documents of demands. First, I will explain the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion and the notion of strategic maneuvering. After that I will characterize the activity type of documents of demands using this model. This characterization will provide the necessary context for the analysis of one case of a document of demands in the next chapter.

3.1 Pragma-Dialectical Model of Critical Discussion and Strategic Maneuvering

The ideal model of critical discussion serves to analyze and evaluate argumentative discourse (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 19). This model assumes that people argue to resolve their difference of opinion by the merits of their arguments. In order to have a clear picture of the discussion, the ideal model identifies the parties participating in the discussion as the ‘protagonist’, whose task it is to defend his or her standpoint, and an ‘antagonist’, whose role it is to put forward doubts and criticisms in order to test the acceptability of the protagonist’s standpoint (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 59). As to evaluate the argumentative moves by both parties, a ‘code of conduct’ is implemented. This code indicates the norms that arguers should follow in order to resolve the difference of opinion in a reasonable way. Any violation of one or more of these norms is regarded as a fallacious move (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004:162).

The ideal model of critical discussion distinguishes analytically four stages in the process of resolving a difference of opinion and considers the distribution of speech acts according to each stage of the discussion. In the confrontation stage, parties aim to make clear what the main difference of opinion is. If only doubts are casted on the standpoint of the protagonist, the difference of opinion is non-mixed. A mixed difference of opinion, on the other hand, involves the protagonist’s standpoint facing contradiction or criticism. In any case, when argumentation is put forward to defend a standpoint, it is because the protagonist is faced with the antagonist’s doubt and criticism or because the protagonist anticipates them (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 60).

(28)

18

In the opening stage, parties try to establish the common starting points in order to resolve their difference of opinion. These include shared background, knowledge of facts, similar values, commitments, and all that they agree on (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 60). The common starting points also include the format of the discussion, the division of the burden of proof, the type of evidence that is allowed and all the rules that regulate the discussion. These common starting points are, however, usually left unexpressed by the participants. In such cases, the analyst can look at the discourse of the parties and reconstruct the common starting points and the commitments of each party (van Eemeren et al., 1993: 26).

During the argumentation stage (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 60), arguers test the acceptability of the standpoint at issue. The role of the protagonist is to defend his or her standpoint by means of arguments, and the role of the antagonist is to cast doubt or criticism on the protagonist’s standpoint.

In the concluding stage (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 61), parties establish the result of their attempt to resolve the difference of opinion. If the protagonist was not able to successfully answer to the criticisms of the antagonist, the protagonist has to retract his or her standpoint. If the defense of the standpoint was successful, the antagonist needs to retract his or her questions and criticisms. If both parties recognize that the standpoint was defended successfully, then the discussion is resolved. If not, the discussion can continue indefinitely (van Eemeren et al. 1993: 27). When the discussion is not resolved, but is brought to an end by a third party or by voting or by other means, it is said that the difference of opinion was settled (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 58).

These stages will be crucial in order to establish the activity type of documents of demands in terms of an argumentative discussion. Later in this chapter I will explain the empirical counterparts of the aforementioned stages of the ideal model. For now, it is important to explain the notion of strategic maneuvering.

In order to resolve a difference of opinion in a reasonable way it is necessary to fulfill certain conditions (van Eemeren et. al. 1993: 30). The first-order condition is the code of conduct for a reasonable discussion that arguers should follow in order to resolve a difference of opinion on the merits of argumentation. However, the code can only be implemented if other additional conditions are fulfilled. These include the parties having a discussion-minded attitude, the same level of expertise and authority to speak, same interest in resolving the difference of opinion, along with values such as freedom of speech, intellectual pluralisms,

(29)

19

diversity, among others. These are regarded as higher-order conditions (van Eemeren & Gootendorst 2004: 189).

A limitation of the ideal model is that the higher-order conditions are hard to find outside the model, as noted by Jacobs (2007).10 For instance, real-life arguers have diverse interests in a discussion and not just resolving it in a reasonable way. As a consequence, they use argumentation also to their own advantage (van Eemeren et al 1993: 32; van Eemeren 2010: 196). In this line, Pilgram (2015: 75) suggests that ‘whether and to what extent the higher-order conditions can be fulfilled will depend on the context in which the argumentative discourse takes place, since the contextual constraints may be such that the higher-conditions cannot be completely fulfilled’. Therefore, to some extent context may hinder the resolution process.

As a solution to this problem, and to give a more detailed analysis of argumentation in context, van Eemeren (2010) proposes the notion of strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering integrates rhetorical insights to the ideal model of critical discussion, allowing the analyst to take into consideration the individual goals that arguers may have in a discussion. Strategic maneuvering takes into account the ways in which arguers exploit their contextual opportunities while trying to maintain a balance between being reasonable and being effective (van Eemeren 2010). In other words, arguers maneuver strategically between their dialectical obligations and their rhetorical goals within extrinsic contextual constraints (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2002a).

From this perspective, every stage of the discussion will imply opportunities and constraints. In the same way that each discussion stage has a dialectical objective, each stage will have an analogue rhetorical goal (van Eemeren 2007: 171). During the confrontation stage, for instance, the dialectical goal is, as noted earlier, to achieve clarity on what the difference of opinion is. For the rhetorical analogue during this stage, each party will try to steer the confrontation in a way that is the most beneficial to defend his or her standpoint. Each party will try to push a definition of the difference of opinion that favors the issue that this party wishes to discuss. Likewise, each party will try to get the position that is easier to defend or to attack (van Eemeren 2010: 43).

At each stage of the discussion there will be different rhetorical opportunities and dialectical constraints that parties will try to exploit by selecting their moves from the topical

10

In fact, as Jacobs (2007) points out, if arguers found themselves in ideal circumstances they would have no need to argue at all since they will have the same access to the same information, same level of authority, same level of power, same level of interests and, in general, same level of resources.

(30)

20

potential, adapting their discourse to the audience demands and using certain presentational devices (van Eemeren & Garssen 2012: 44). These three choices constitute the three

inseparable aspects of strategic maneuvering. Although they can be distinguished analytically, they occur simultaneously in every argumentative move.

The topical potential (van Eemeren 2010: 96) concerns the choices that arguers make among the repertories of options available for making an argumentative move in a specific situation. For instance, in the argumentative stage, arguers may select different types of arguments to defend or attack a standpoint. Audience demands (van Eemeren 2010: 108) refer to the choices that arguers make to adapt their argumentative moves to the protagonist or antagonist’s frame of reference. To make his or her argument more effective in the argumentation stage, for instance, the protagonist will choose those arguments that works better with the antagonist’s background and knowledge. Presentational devices (van Eemeren 2010: 118) involve the choices of the way in which arguers present their arguments. These include the communicational means (written, spoken or visual) and stylistic choices, such as rhetorical tropes and figures that could make the standpoint and argumentation more acceptable for the other party.

With these aspects in mind, it is possible to see how, in the context of protesting, protesters exploit the opportunities available for them in each stage of the discussion.

3.2 Documents of Demands as a Communicative Activity Type

According to van Eemeren (2010: 159), when we analyze and evaluate argumentative discourse in context, it is necessary to consider not only the dialectical and rhetorical aims intrinsic to strategic maneuvering but also the institutional goals of the communicative activity type in which argumentative discourse takes place. This due to the extrinsic constraints that each activity type imposes on the argumentative moves.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the institutional goal of the activity of protesting is to give civil society an alternative channel to influence institutional processes of policy-making. As part of the political domain, this practice is instrumental in promoting democratic values by allowing civil society to participate in the institutional processes of decision-making from a bottom-up process. Protesting and the speech events taking place within this context, therefore, will be of help to achieve the institutional goal of preserving and enhancing democratic values. Likewise, different communication genre will help to achieve the goal of the activity types within the general context of protest. In this context two

(31)

21

main genres can be instrumental to fulfill the institutional point of the political domain, viz., deliberation and negotiation.

The genre of deliberation, according to van Eemeren (2010:154), ‘usually starts from a mixed disagreement between two or more parties who are addressing each other but are in the first place out to gain the support of a listening, reading or watching audience in resolving one or more of the differences of opinion that might exist between them and (part of) these people, who are in fact their primary audience’. In line with this, as it was shown in chapter two, although protesters aim their demands to a specific target, their goal is to get and maintain the support of third parties so they can put pressure on the target to grant the protest’s demands.

Regarding negotiation, van Eemeren (2010:157) points out that it is ‘aimed at ending a conflict of interests between parties by a compromise or a similar mutually acceptable result’. Furthermore, ‘in negotiation this outcome is brought about through rule-governed exchanges of offers, counter-offers and other commissives which convey argumentation or are interspersed with argumentation’. In the case of social protest, the protesters will aim to end the conflict by a compromise of the target regarding their demands. As shown in chapter two, the target may give material and/or symbolic rewards. In any case, the aim of the protesters is to elicit a commitment from the target concerning their demands.

For the characterization of protesting in argumentative terms I will use one type of speech event that is common in the context of protesting, namely documents of demands. Here I define documents of demands as public documents issued by protesters in which they make demands to the target of the protest.11 I will use the term documents of demands as an umbrella term covering different conventionalized means of communication used by protesters. For instance, under this term I will consider collective petitions, newsletters, press releases, appeals, declarations, among others.

Documents of demands are especially relevant in the context of protest since in them it is possible to identify who the protesters are, who the target of the protest is, who the third parties are, while also through them protesters externalize what the main claims and the demands of the protest are, and under which terms the protest will come to an end. Another reason for which documents of demands are important is because other actions revolve around the demands of the protesters.

11

In her study of the protest of three social movements in Russia, Klimova (2006: 115) finds that demanding is a recurrent issue. In her study the distribution of the speech act of demanding by the three different social movements was between the second and the fourth most recurrent speech act.

(32)

22

As to characterize documents of demands in the context of protesting in argumentative terms we need to identify the empirical counterparts of the aforementioned stages of the ideal model of critical discussion. These empirical counterparts for the confrontation, opening, argumentative and concluding stages are the initial situation, the

common starting points, the argumentative means, and the outcome of argumentative discourse, respectively (van Eemeren, 2010: 146).

In the initial situation, protesters, being the addressers, play the role of the protagonist, while the target, being the recipient, plays the role of the antagonist. In documents of demands protesters appeal to third parties trying to gain their support or calling for actions against the target. As I have shown in chapter two, protesters depend on third parties to pressure the target to implement a change. Third parties, therefore, play the role of primary audience, while targets take on the role of the secondary audience. This means that even though the discussion will seem to be between the protesters and the target, the goal of the protesters will be to gain the support of third parties to put pressure on the target to grant the protest’s demands.

With regard to the type of discussion defined in this initial situation, the difference of opinion between the protesters and the target can be mixed, seeing that the protesters’ goal is to challenge a policy, law or a situation. However, it can also be the case that there is only a conflict of interests between the target and the protesters without an actual discussion. For instance, in a situation in which there is no negotiation between the target and the protesters, the conflict remains although there is no actual difference of opinion.

In their relation with third parties, protesters may have to cope with two restrictions. Firstly, the protesters need to gain the support of third parties or, at least, avoid making a negative impression on them: if the protesters make their claims unacceptable for third parties, they will lose the possibility of influencing the target. At the same time, this may imply that the unacceptability of the protest confers to some extent legitimacy to the actions of the targeted institution. Secondly, the protesters need to maintain the acceptance of those who already support their cause: violating original commitments or violating some conventions may cause third parties to withdraw their backing. The latter will not constitute a discussion since no difference of opinion is at stake. Nevertheless, the possibility of disagreement is latent and constitute a constraint to the discourse of protesters. This discussions are illustrated with the dialectical situation of Figure 3.1

(33)

23

Figure 3. 1 Dialectical Situation of the Activity Type of Documents of Demands

The common starting points of the activity of documents of demands are explicitly recognized rules such as Human Rights and constitutions, foundational documents, the explicit recognition of equal or higher order authorities (e.g. other countries, other governmental powers and other non-governmental organizations) and implicit higher-order values (e.g. democracy, justice, freedom, equality, etc.). These common starting points will be essential to the discussion. The main reason for this is that targets, being public agencies, cannot deny these commitments without being sanctioned by the general public or other instances such as other governmental powers or other countries.

The possible argumentative means available to protesters in the activity type of documents of demands can be to appeal to contradictions between actions of the target and the recognized common starting points, e.g., violations of rights and obligations. Protesters may also advance arguments appealing to higher values such as justice, equality and democracy. For instance, in protests in dictatorial regimes, under the condition that protesting is possible, protesters often appeal to human rights and democratic values. Additionally, protesters may appeal to the consequences that follow if the demands are not granted by a given date. For that protesters employ commissives and conditional threats (If X is not granted, then we will do Y).

The possible outcomes of the discussion in the activity type of documents of demands are that the target grants the demands of the protesters or some of them. On the contrary case, if the target do not grant the demands the discussion can return to the starting point or it can escalate into a bigger conflict. As shown in chapter two, targets may give material or symbolic rewards. Material rewards will imply a commitment to, or the performance of, material changes by the target. If the target gives the material rewards demanded by the protesters, the discussion is resolved. In the case of symbolic rewards, if the target appears to be concerned with the problem but does not perform any structural change, the discussion can potentially return to its point of departure. If the common starting points are dismissed by the target, the discussion may escalate into a bigger conflict. Third parties, within this stage, can

(34)

24

punish the target to different degrees, ranging from not voting for the target again to economic sanctions from other countries if the protest is aimed at a state. In the case of protesters, third parties can withdraw their support if the protesters violate common starting points or agreements between them. For instance, the use of violence by protesters may cause transnational NGOs to withdraw their support. Figure 3.2 is a visualization of the complete characterization of documents of demands.

Initial Situation Procedural and

Material Starting Point

Argumentative Means

and Criticism Possible Outcome

The core discussion is a conflict of interests between protesters and target.

Possible, but not necessary mixed difference of opinion between the protesters and the target

Protesters will aim to gain and maintain 3rd parties’ support; possible mixed and non-mixed difference of opinion between protesters and third parties; latent disagreement of supporting 3rd parties.

Explicit rules and conventions such as Human Rights,

international treatises, and foundational documents such as constitutions.

Other conventions

publicly recognized by the parties.

Explicit recognition of equal or higher order authorities

(e.g. other countries, other governmental and non-governmental

organizations, and other governmental powers).

Implicit higher-order values (e.g. democracy, justice, freedom, equality).

Argumentation appealing to inconsistency between starting points and actions or lack of actions.

Argumentation based on a relation of analogy comparing other institutions or countries with the target of the protest. Symptomatic argumentation by citing higher institutional authorities. Symptomatic argumentation and argumentation based on a relation of analogy appealing to higher values such as democracy, justice, freedom, equality, etc.

Pragmatic argumentation appealing to consequences by means of commissives and conditional threats (If X is not granted, then we will do Y).

End of the conflict by compromise of the target or by the granting of the demands (or some of them).

Return to the starting point of the discussion.

Escalation of the conflict.

(35)

25

Having characterized the activity type of documents of demands, the next chapter will aim to illustrate how these characteristics affect the way that protesters maneuver strategically in order to cope with the audience demands.

(36)

(37)

27

CHAPTER 4 Documents of Demands in the Context of Social Protest: A Case Study

In this chapter I will illustrate the characterization of the communicative activity type of documents of demands which has been explained in the previous chapter. In order to characterize this communicative activity type, I will use the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR) issued in 1990 in the Delta Niger, Nigeria, by the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP). As it was mentioned in chapter three, the term documents of demands covers different specific conventionalized communicative practices. In this case, I regard the OBR as one of those practices because through it MOSOP issue their demands to the government of Nigeria. However, we should have in mind that bills of rights can be a specific activity type, with other specific characteristics besides including demands. Since the main focus of this research are documents of demands, I will take the elements of the OBR related to documents of demands as they were characterized in chapter three.

The OBR, more than being a formal legislative bill of rights it served MOSOP to create an antecedent on the political and environmental problems unattended by the government of Nigeria (Senewo 2015: 665). In this document, MOSOP demanded political autonomy and environmental rights from the Nigerian government, while at the same time demanding environmental restoration for the ecological damages caused by oil exploration and extraction in Ogoni land. The OBR was chosen because the issues raised by MOSOP started out as a local problem, and evolved into a transnational episode in which international institutions such as NGOs and other governments participated. This allows us to see, as mentioned in chapter two and three, how a protest can initiate locally and evolve into a major conflict (Tarrow 2015). Moreover, the OBR was chosen because it is a good example of how social movements maneuver strategically to exploit their rhetorical opportunities and dialectical constraints.

First, I will establish the context in which the OBR was issued, after which I will identify the argumentative elements that have been characterized in chapter three.

4.1 Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People and the Ogoni Bill of Rights

After thirty years of oil exploitation and environmental destruction in Ogoniland, the Ogoni people, under the leadership of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), gathered to ratify and sign the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR). This document, written by Ken Saro-Wiwa, became the instrument through which MOSOP articulated their

(38)

28

main demand of political autonomy, which included the control of Ogoni affairs and resources by the Ogoni people, adequate and direct representation in all Nigerian national institutions, development of the Ogoni language and culture, religious freedom, and the right to protect the environment and ecology from further degradation (MOSOP 1992).

This bold demand for self-determination, according to Senewo (2015: 656), was ‘an avenue to voice opposition against existing revenue allocation formula practiced in Nigeria— a formula that gave the federal, state, and local governments sole power over especially the distribution of oil revenues to the detriment of the oil-producing communities’. The document issued not only include the Nigerian government under the military dictatorship of General Ibrahim Badmasi Babangida, but also Shell Petroleum Development Company who benefited from the way in which the government controlled and distributed oil revenues.

After more than a year neither the government nor Shell had responded to the OBR. As a consequence, MOSOP integrated an addendum in which the Ogoni people authorized MOSOP to make representation with international institutions, including the United Nations’ Commission of Human Rights, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the African Commission of Human and People’s Rights, the European Community and other international institutions (MOSOP 1992). During the first year, and, arguably, due to the political character of the central demand of the OBR, MOSOP did not receive any substantive support from major transnational NGOs. Greenpeace, for one, found the Ogoni issue primarily ‘a complicated domestic political wrangle’ (Bob 2002a). It was not until Kens Saro-Wiwa emphasized the environmental issues of the OBR, that MOSOP received the attention of, and support from major transnational NGOs such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Sierra Club, Human Rights Watch, Friends of Earth and other environmentalist groups (Senewo 2015).

Three years after the OBR was issued, MOSOP had not yet received a response from neither the government nor Shell. MOSOP stepped-up their protest and organized a demonstration on January 4 of 1993. This date was symbolically important because 1994 was declared ‘the year of the world indigenous people’ by the UN (Senewo 2015). With approximately 300,000 Ogonis, MOSOP, led by Saro-Wiwa, took the streets of all Ogoni towns to protest in support of the OBR (Senewo: 2015).

Although MOSOP and Ogoni people pursued their demands in a nonviolent way, and reaffirming their wish to belong to the federation (MOSOP 1992), the Nigerian government considered the OBR as a separatist threat that could be followed by other ethnic minorities. As a consequence, the government’s reaction was high-handed, leading to violent episodes of repression during which Ogoni houses were destroyed and people were killed by the army.

(39)

29

Furthermore, Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight Ogoni activist were imprisoned and executed after having been accused of inciting the murder of four opposition Ogoni leaders. The case was severely criticized by international organizations since it lacked of due process. Moreover, the charges were later on proved to be false after two witnesses confessed that they were bribed to testify against ‘the Ogoni nine’ with money and awards of contracts from Shell (Human Rights Watch 1995). After the execution, the Nigerian government became a ‘pariah regimen’ (Bob 2002a), which implied it being expelled from the Commonwealth and another international sanctions. This however, did not impede the government to end up with MOSOP domestically.

Many of the actions and strategies used by MOSOP revolved around the OBR. The document served to create an antecedent of the lack of commitment by the Nigerian government and Shell to discuss the issues it puts forward. The OBR may be considered a speech event taking place within the communicative activity type of documents of demands, whose institutional goal was to influence the decision-making processes of the Nigerian government and Shell by means of pressure by third parties. Taking into consideration the characterization proposed in chapter three, I will illustrate the argumentative elements of the OBR. For this purpose, I will reconstruct the OBR as a multi-party discussion and establish the initial situation of the discussion, the common starting points, the argumentative means, and the outcome of the discussion. I will not evaluate the argumentative elements in the OBR, as this is not the main focus of the present research.

4.2 Initial Situation

The first time the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR)12 was published in 1992, it was formally addressed to the government and the people of Nigeria. Addressing the people of Nigeria it is a symbolical mention. However, because the OBR was published and was aimed at gaining the Nigerian peoples’ support, we may identify the Nigerian people as a third party in the discussion. Likely, the OBR includes an explicit appeal to the international community. Additionally, a copy of the OBR was delivered to Shell. The document was written and sent by the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) on behalf of the Ogoni people.

Taking this in consideration, MOSOP can be identified as the protagonist of the discussion, the people of Nigeria and the international community as third parties, and the

12