Sit-in as argument and the perils of misuse

Abstract

This essay focuses on the sit-in as an argument enacted by social and labor movement activists. Informed by earlier research, I discern a general argument of the sit-in and isolate a recent instance of the argument’s deployment to illustrate concerns with non-activist usages. In this effort, I suggest that an explicitly argument-focused perspective on sit-ins offers a new and productive theorization of this important phenomenon. My case study for this essay examines the 2016 Democratic Congressional protest, and especially its use of the sit-in. I argue the sit-in was inappropriately fashioned in the style of citizen protest, and thereby forwarded highly problematic specific claims. This protest thus potentially jeopardized both the persuasiveness of citizen protests and its identity-enhancing meaning by associating a government-led protest with the activist-led tradition of the sit-in.

Keywords:

• sit-in
• deliberation
• activism
• protest

Notes

1 A more complete understanding of the relationship between authenticity and ethos is beyond the scope of this essay. For more information, see Anderson (2009); Gamie (2017); Higgs & Budd (2007).

2 I thank Paul Johnson for directing me toward this criticism during an informal talk at the 2017 Alta Argumentation conference.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Scott J. Varda

Scott J. Varda is an associate professor of communication at Baylor University. The author thanks Leslie Hahner and Laurel A. C. Medhurst for their assistance in the construction of this essay.