%0 Journal Article
%T Transcender les diff¨¦rends : une r¨¦action possible aux situations de d¨¦saccord profond The Appeal for Transcendence: A Possible Response to Cases of Deep Disagreement
%A David Zarefsky
%J Argumentation et Analyse du Discours
%D 2012
%I University of Tel-Aviv
%X Le d¨¦saccord profond est une situation dans laquelle le conflit est tellement fondamental qu¡¯il ne semble exister ¨¤ aucun niveau d¡¯accord sous-jacent partag¨¦. Il est g¨¦n¨¦ralement admis qu¡¯aucun d¨¦bat productif n'est possible dans de pareils cas. Tout argument avanc¨¦ par l¡¯une des parties pourra ¨ºtre contest¨¦ par l¡¯autre dans un processus de r¨¦gression potentiellement infini, car ¨¤ aucun moment les interlocuteurs ne sont oblig¨¦s d¡¯accepter un quelconque point de vue en vertu de leurs prises de positions ant¨¦rieures. Surmonter un d¨¦saccord profond exige de d¨¦passer l¡¯impasse sur laquelle achoppe le d¨¦bat, en envisageant la controverse sous un jour diff¨¦rent. Cet article identifie quatre couples de strat¨¦gies rh¨¦toriques permettant de r¨¦am¨¦nager le d¨¦saccord et de transformer le d¨¦bat. Il pr¨¦sente ¨¦galement deux ¨¦tudes de cas pour illustrer ces strat¨¦gies : dans l¡¯une, on parvient ¨¤ d¨¦passer le d¨¦saccord, alors que l¡¯autre se solde par un ¨¦chec. Deep disagreement is a situation in which a conflict is so fundamental that there appears to be no underlying shared agreement by the arguers at any level. It is generally held that in such a case productive argument is not possible. Any claim the one party makes can be challenged by the other party in a potentially infinite regress, because there is no moment at which the interlocutor, by virtue of his or her prior commitments, is obligated to accept any standpoint. Overcoming deep disagreement requires transcending the impasse in the argument, seeing the controversy in a different light. This essay identifies four pairs of strategies that involve rhetorical moves to reset the disagreement and reshape the argument. In addition, two case studies are presented to illustrate these strategies, one a case of successful transcendence and the other a case of failure.
%K framing
%K deep disagreement
%K transcendent argument
%K circumstantial ad hominem
%K abortion controversy
%K polarization
%K cadrage
%K ad hominem circonstanciel
%K d¨¦saccord profond
%K argument transcendant
%K pol¨¦mique sur l¡¯avortement
%K polarisation
%U http://aad.revues.org/1251