Situations of Difference in Political Argument

In this project, we use the analytical tools of philosophy and argumentation theory to address an increasing and troubling phenomenon: political differences. Thus, we start from a rhetorical model of argumentation proposed by the Canadian philosopher C. Tindale at the University of Windsor, to illuminate recent case studies. The project is divided into two components. The theoretical component aims to clarify the meaning of some notions that have been used to describe a difference between parties in a discussion: disagreement, conflict, critical discussion, dispute, dissensus, controversy, polemic, and misunderstanding. In turn, the analytical component aims to perform argumentative analyses of Latin American political discourses motivated by situations of difference. The expected outcome relates to conceptual clarification but also to concrete analyses of cases whose lessons would be valuable in improving how we teach citizens to deal with the differences that separate them from each other.

Faculty Supervisor:

Christopher Tindale

Student:

Partner:

Universidad Nacional del General Sarmiento

Discipline:

Sociology

Sector:

Public Service, Policy, and Governance; Social Innovation; Education

University:

University of Windsor

Program: