Check‐mating the state? Argumentation strategies in Finnish equality policies

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this article is to analyse and discuss the argumentation strategies used by the Finnish Council for Equality during 1972–86. The question addressed is: How did the Council try to convince other authorities of the desirability of gender equality and to persuade them to act accordingly, and with what consequences and implications? The theoretical and methodological framework for analysis was provided by Perelman and Olbrechts‐Tyteca's rhetorical theory of argumentation. The analysis shows that in the 1970s it was typical of the Council to utilize mainly associative techniques in the form of pragmatic arguments. These types of strategies were based on a mutual and taken‐for‐granted understanding of equality and tended to focus the debates on the means for attaining the goal. The analysis points out the implications of the argumentation strategy for the formulation and potential success of the claims. At the turn of the 1980s, there came about “a rhetorical turn” in the argumentation...