Challenging Greco-Roman Argumentation Trajectories: Argument Norms and Cultural Traditions

Abstract

A common in western scholarship is that is to be valorized, generally, as a key component of decisions, and, specifically, as an essential tool for life in western, democratic societies. Klumpp, Hollihan, and Riley (2002) note study of practice has developed out of a sense of commitment to a democratic process of deliberation, organized and institutionalized debate, and then political action (p. 579). Zarefsky (2002) describes the pedagogic emphasis of the field as study and teaching of general argumentation, which in turn has been seen as valuable equipment for citizenship in a complex society (p. 35). Kauffeld (2002) suggests that, in our culture learning, institutions, public life, even the economy, all depend on argumentation (p. 24). Hence, scholars are generally secure in their belief that good practices are essential in both our personal and public lives in sorting out ideas and arriving at the best possible decision, given the situation. This commitment to is, in large part, a direct result of our European intellectual tradition. As Branham (1991) notes: basic assumption of Greek and Roman debate is widely held today--that wise decisions (whether in governance or the administration of justice) can only be reached through the clash of conflicting points of view (p. 8). Yet this inheritance is unique to the west, and consequently, our fascination with argument as the central component of decision-making processes may deserve to be interrogated. Indeed, Zarefsky (2002) calls for further comparative study of argumentation. He maintains that looking outside our culture will help us know better where our findings need to be relativized and where we may have insights that are valid across (p. 36). Comparative studies of in different cultures can bring to light literatures that have been overlooked or marginalized and promote new understandings of processes and practices. This issue of Argumentation and Advocacy begins with the that can be conceived and performed in a variety of ways. Argumentation is a manifestation of particular patterns of human interaction drawn from diverse assumptions regarding everything from the nature of reality to the most preferable ways for humans to live. In short, cultural patterns and traditions form an environmental field that conditions the precepts, principles, and trajectories of argumentation. This issue offers an exciting opportunity to feature scholar ship grounded in cultures that, in various ways, function outside of traditional Greco-Roman trajectories. The essays examine classical and contemporary perspectives drawn from Daoist philosophy, Hebraic faith, Native American practices, and Japanese traditions. They do not condemn Greco-Roman traditions of argument or suggest that any particular system is superior to another; rather, the essays help us understand the rich and complex nature of as a vital enterprise that is intimately connected to human experience. In the first essay, Useless/Usefulness of Argumentation: The Dao of Disputation, Steven Combs focuses on Daoism (Taoism), a key component of the Chinese philosophical tradition and many Asian cultures. The essay highlights key differences in Chinese and Greco-Roman ideas on cosmology, knowledge and reason, and language, in order to demonstrate the larger system of thought that collaborates in theories. Daoist privileges intuitive knowledge over reasoning and denounces the ability of language to reflect reality accurately. Ultimately, and unlike Greco-Roman practices, Daoist argument does not attempt to provide the best possible answers to questions posed in a probabilistic world, but rather embraces ambiguity and uncertainty in order to open up new possibilities for belief and action. …