Connecting argumentation in the Americas: past, present, future

ABSTRACT

This article synthesizes the results of several interviews with argumentation scholars from across the American continents to address three questions regarding the connections in argumentation studies between North and South/Central America: “What motivated the study of argumentation in the Americas?” “What commonalities, if any, exist in argumentation studies across the Americas?” and “What should the future of argumentation studies in the Americas look like?” Using these interviews in combination with existing textual sources, the article also provides motivated suggestions for directions for the future of the community in the field.

KEYWORDS:

• Argumentation network
• diversity
• history of argumentation
• North America
• South America

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all the scholars who graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In line with the general convention of identifying seven global continents based on the location of continental shelves, in this article, we will most often demarcate South and North America but do so broadly with the understanding that Central America is an important and, in many ways, distinct area.

2 The interview guide is included below as Appendix A.

3 Since there are already several historical accounts of the development of argumentation in North America (e.g. Blair 2019; Hample 2016; Johnson and Blair 2000; Konishi 2009; Puppo 2019; Tindale 2022), we are here purposefully more focused on the history in South America, which has received far less attention in English texts. See sections of the Handbook of Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren et al. 2014) and Dutilh Novaes (2022, 27) for interesting exceptions.

4 Johnson (2008) positions informal logic as between what he calls “Formal Deductive Logic” (FDL) and Rhetoric and Communication. He writes, “One of the merits, I believe, of the informal logic approach to argument has been its positioning of itself between the (excessively) abstract universalist approach taken in FDL (a theory where one size fits all), and the more contextualized and nuanced approaches found in rhetoric and speech communication – which are highly context sensitive.”

5 Moving beyond the theoretical, the University of Windsor has connected students and professors of argumentation from across the Americas (and from around the world) through their OSSA conferences, visiting research positions at CRRAR, the publication of the WSIA collection, and the opening of the PhD program in Argumentation Studies.

6 Quotes from interviews conducted in Portuguese or Spanish have been translated by the authors.

7 Being born in Spain, completing her undergraduate there, completing an LLM and a PhD from the European University Institute, and an LLM and a SJD from Harvard Law School, Amaya Navarro herself can be viewed as an important European influence on legal reasoning and argumentation in the Americas

8 In North America, Gonçalves-Segundo mentioned the works of Michael Weiler, Christopher Eisenhart, Barbara Johnstone, Douglas Park, Harvey Siegel, Ralph Johnson, Anthony Blair, Douglas Walton, and Marc Angenot. In South America, he has highlighted the works of Cristián Santibañez, Maria Alejandra Vitale, María de los Angeles Manassero, Constanza Padilla, and Julder Gómez.

9 Although, in this regard, it is worth referencing Carlos Gómez’s (2012) proposed criteria for intercultural argumentation in Latin America.

10 Santibáñez notes that there has been a systematic and continuous translation of argumentation literature from French into Spanish by colleagues in Argentina, but that it has not been sufficiently disseminated.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel Mejía

Daniel Mejía S earned an Undergraduate degree in philosophy from Universidad de Antioquia and a Master’s degree in Humanistic Studies from Universidad EAFIT. He is currently a PhD Student in Argumentation Studies and a Research Assistant for the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric at the University of Windsor. He is also part of the Research Group Studies in Philosophy, Hermeneutics and Narratives of the Universidad EAFIT, and serves as Graduate Student Representative on the executive committee of the Argumentation Network of the Americas. His research interests in political argumentation, the concept of disagreement, the social appropriation of knowledge, and the connection between argumentation studies and social movements studies.

Hugo Ribeiro Mota

Hugo Ribeiro Mota is a PhD candidate in Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway. He holds a B.A. and an M.A. in Philosophy from the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil and is a Graduate representative on the executive committee of the Argumentation Network of Americas. His research interests are in social epistemology, argumentation theory, philosophy of attention, and political philosophy, with special focus on structural conflicts related to racism and sexism in Europe and the Americas.

Michael D. Baumtrog

Michael D. Baumtrog is an assistant professor in the department of Law and Business in the Ted Rogers School of Management at Toronto Metropolitan University. He is also a founding member and current chair of the Argumentation Network of the Americas. He earned his PhD within the Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA) at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon and his BA(h) and MA from the University of Windsor. His two main research focuses are on ethical decision-making and epistemic injustice, especially as it relates to and impacts children and young people.