Argumentation, dialogue and conflicting moral economies in post-1989 Romania: an argument against the trade union movement

Abstract

This article analyzes a representative newspaper article on transition to a market economy in Romania, in particular on the role of the trade union movement, by H.-R. Patapievici, a prominent public intellectual. The analytical framework combines critical discourse analysis (CDA), theories of argumentation, in particular pragma-dialectics, and a theory of modality in terms of distinct types of ‘conversational backgrounds’ of premises that arguers draw on in reasoning. I propose this integrated framework as an original contribution to the development of CDA as a method of textual analysis. I discuss a variety of argumentative fallacies and the way in which they prevent substantive dialogue with a range of relevant views. I relate the protagonist’s ‘strategic maneuvering’ to the pursuit of political strategies and to particular forms of recontextualization of liberal discourses in post-communism. I analyze the normative backgrounds that underlie argumentation in terms of conflicting moral economies and the way in which ‘strategic maneuvering’ functions to obscure ethical perspectives grounded in social justice and individual rights, and universalize and naturalize a particular ideological and moral perspective.