Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T21:56:05.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The false promise of the better argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Tine Hanrieder
Tine Hanrieder*
Affiliation:
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut for Political Science, University of Munich (LMU), Oettingenstraße 67, Munich, Germany
*
E-mail: tine.hanrieder@gsi.uni-muenchen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effective argumentation in international politics is widely conceived as a matter of persuasion. In particular, the ‘logic of arguing’ ascribes explanatory power to the ‘better argument’ and promises to illuminate the conditions of legitimate normative change. This article exposes the self-defeating implications of the Habermasian symbiosis between the normative and the empirical force of arguments. Since genuine persuasion is neither observable nor knowable, its analysis critically depends on what scholars consider to be the better argument. Seemingly, objective criteria such as universality only camouflage such moral reification. The paradoxical consequence of an explanatory concept of arguing is that moral discourse is no longer conceptualized as an open-ended process of contestation and normative change, but has recently been recast as a governance mechanism ensuring the compliance of international actors with pre-defined norms. This dilemma can be avoided through a positivist reification of valid norms, as in socialization research, or by adopting a critical and emancipatory focus on the obstacles to true persuasion. Still, both solutions remain dependent on the ‘persuasion vs. coercion’ problem that forestalls an insight into successful justificatory practices other than rational communication. The conclusion therefore pleas for a pragmatic abstention from better arguments and points to the insights to be gained from pragmatist norms research in sociology.

Keywords

persuasionmoral argumentHabermasnormativity problemcritical theorypragmatism

Information

Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , 20 September 2011 , pp. 390 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, Emanuel, Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1989. “Normative Begründung der ‘Kritischen Theorie’ durch Rekurs auf lebensweltliche Sittlichkeit? Ein transzendental-pragmatisch orientierter Versuch, mit Habermas gegen Habermas zu denken.” In Zwischenbetrachtungen. Im Prozeß der Aufklärung, edited by Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe and Albrecht Wellmer, 15–65. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1999. “Openly Strategic Uses of Language: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective (A second attempt to think with Habermas against Habermas).” In Habermas: A Critical Reader, edited by Peter Dews, 272–290. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1971. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael. 2009. “Evolution without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt.” International Organization 63:621–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Michael W., Knill, Christoph. 2007. Management Reforms in International Organizations. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjola, Corneliu. 2005. “Legitimating the Use of Force in International Politics: A Communicative Action Perspective.” European Journal of International Relations 11:266–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjola, Corneliu, Kornprobst, Markus, eds. 2011. “Introduction: the Argumentative Deontology of Global Governance.” In Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning, 1–15. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Böhler, Dietrich. 1982. “Transzendentalpragmatik und kritische Moral. Über die Möglichkeit und die moralische Bedeutung einer Selbstaufklärung der Vernunft.” In Kommunikation und Reflexion: Zur Diskussion der Transzendentalpragmatik. Antworten auf Karl-Otto Apel, edited by Wolfgang Kuhlmann and Dietrich Böhler, 83–123. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1997. “Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources, and Opportunities.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Regh, 321–348. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James 2010. “Critical Theory.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/critical-theoryGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, Luc, Thévenot, Laurent. 1999. “The Sociology of Critical Capacity.” European Journal of Social Theory 2:359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, Luc, Thévenot, Laurent 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brem, Stefan, Rutherford, Ken. 2001. “Walking Together or Divided Agenda? Comparing Landmines and Small-Arms Campaigns.” Security Dialogue 32:169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change.” International Organization 55:553–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T 2005. “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework.” International Organization 59:801–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Alexander, Ron, James. 2002. “The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action.” International Security 27:5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2002. Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Neta C 2011. “Homo politicus and Argument (nearly) All the Way Down: Persuasion in Politics.” In Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning, edited by Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, 19–51. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2006. Überzeugung in der Politik. Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie Internationalen Regierens. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole 2009. “The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case.” International Organization 63:33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, Müller, Harald. 2005. “Theoretical Paradise – Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas.” Review of International Studies 31:169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Michael, Hunt, Chris. 1998. “Negotiating in the Ottawa Process: The New Multilateralism.” Canadian Foreign Policy 5:25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1982. “Arguing and Bargaining in the Federal Assemly and the Assemblée Constituante.” In Rationality and Institutions: Essays in Honor of Knut Midgaard, edited by Raino Malnes and Arild Underdal, 13–50. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43:169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, Jörg, Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2009. “On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology.” International Organization 63:701–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E. 2006. “Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy.” International Organization 60:35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grobe, Christian. 2010. “The Power of Words: Argumentative Persuasion in International Negotiations.” European Journal of International Relations 16:5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6:147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1983. Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1988. “Handlungen, Sprechakte, sprachlich vermittelte Interaktionen und Lebenswelt.” In Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Philosophische Aufsätze, edited by Jürgen Habermas, 63–104. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1991. “Vom pragmatischen, ethischen und moralischen Gebrauch der praktischen Vernunft.” In Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Philosophische Aufsätze, edited by Jürgen Habermas, 100–118. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1995. “Intention, Konvention und sprachliche Interaktion.” In Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, edited by Jürgen Habermas, 307–331. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen 1999. Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung: Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hanrieder, Tine. 2008. “Moralische Argumente in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Grenzen einer verständigungstheoretischen ‘Erklärung’ moralischer Debatten.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 15:161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darren. 2004. “Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms.” International Studies Quarterly 48:779–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther, ed. 2009. “The Forum: Pragmatism and International Relations.” International Studies Review 11:638–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heppt, Alexander. 2007. “What is a Better Argument? Toward a Non-Consent-Based Criterion for Legitimacy.” Paper presented at the 6th Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Turin, September 2007.Google Scholar
Herborth, Benjamin. 2007. “Verständigung verstehen. Anmerkungen zur ZIB-Debatte.” In Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik, edited by Peter Niesen and Benjamin Herborth, 147–172. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Holzinger, Katharina. 2001. “Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8:243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humrich, Christoph. 2008. Kommunikative Vernunft und Internationale Beziehungen. Eine Theoriearbeit in praktischer Absicht. Bremen: University of Bremen, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization 53:379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian 2002. “Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council.” Global Governance 8:35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian 2008. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1996. The Creativity of Action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 2000. The Genesis of Values. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 2001. “Values versus Norms: A Pragmatist Account of Moral Objectivity.” The Hedgehog Review 3:42–56.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation between Critical Theory and Rational Choice.” American Political Science Review 87:74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Alastair I. 2001. “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments.” International Studies Quarterly 45:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2001. “Governance in a Partially Globalized World: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000.” American Political Science Review 95:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornprobst, Markus. 2011. “The Agent's Logic of Action: Defining and Mapping Political Judgement.” International Theory 3:70–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Ronald R., Jackson, Patrick T. 2007. “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric.” European Journal of International Relations 13:35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona L., True, Jacqui. 2010. “Rethinking the Life Cycles of International Norms: The United Nations and the Global Promotion of Gender Equality.” European Journal of International Relations 1–25 (Published online 18 November 2010).Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1993. “Die Wurzeln radikaler Demokratie.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41:321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, Charles 2001. “Der Zwang des besseren Arguments.” In Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit. Festschrift für Jürgen Habermas, edited by Lutz Wingert and Klaus Günther, 106–125. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard N. 2010. Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew. 2005. “Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process.” Review of International Studies 31:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John L. 1965. “Causes and Conditions.” American Philosophical Quarterly 2:245–264.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1985. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2005. “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres.” American Political Science Review 99:401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Harald. 1994. “Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1:15–44.Google Scholar
Müller, Harald 2004. “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory, and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 10:395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Harald 2007. “Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. Verteidigung, Befunde, Warnung.” In Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik, edited by Peter Niesen and Benjamin Herborth, 199–223. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. 1993. “Kommunikative Rationalität und praktische Vernunft.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41:329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panke, Diana. 2010. “Why Discourse Only Matters Sometimes: Effective Arguing Beyond the Nation-State.” Review of International Studies 36:145–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Roger A. 2001. “Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction.” European Journal of International Relations 7:37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2007. “Resilience as the Explanandum of Social Theory.” In Political Contingency: Studying the Unexpected, the Accidental, and the Unforeseen, edited by Ian Shapiro and Sonu Bedi, 79–96. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 1995. “A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo.” International Organization 49:73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Richard 1998. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Landmines.” International Organization 52:613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, Judith. 2012. Discourse, Normative Change and the Quest for Reconciliation in Global Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 1999. “International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Area.” Politics & Society 27:529–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas 2000. “ ‘Let's argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas 2004. “Global Governance and Communicative Action.” Government and Opposition 39:288–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas 2007. “Global Governance und Kommunikatives Handeln.” In Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik, edited by Peter Niesen and Benjamin Herborth, 57–86. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Jetschke, Anja, Schmitz, Hans-Peter. 2002. Die Macht der Menschenrechte. Internationale Normen, kommunikatives Handeln und politischer Wandel in den Ländern des Südens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms Into Domestic Practices: Introduction.” In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, edited by Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, 1–38. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1996. “The Ambiguity of ‘Rationality’.” Constellations 3:73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard 2000. “Universality and Truth.” In Rorty and His Critics, edited by Robert B. Brandom, 1–30. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne. 2008. “Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules against Wartime Plunder.” European Journal of International Relations 14:101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 1997. “Rhetorisches Handeln in der internationalen Politik.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4:219–254.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank 2001. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” International Organization 55:47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank 2003. The EU, NATO, and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichte, Klaus,, Veit, Alex. 2007. “Coupled Arenas: Why State-building is so Difficult”. Working Paper Micropolitics 3/2007 (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/mikropolitik/workingpapers).Google Scholar
Schnädelbach, Herbert. 2002. “Transformation der Kritischen Theorie.” In Kommunikatives Handeln. Beiträge zu Jürgen Habermas’ Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, edited by Axel Honneth and Hans Joas, 3d ed., 15–34. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, Jens. 2003. “The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach.” European Journal of International Relations 9:249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, Jens 2005. “Incomplete Agreements and the Limits of Persuasion in International Politics.” Journal of International Relations and Development 8:229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, Jens 2010. “Norms, Persuasion and the New German Idealism in IR.” In On Rules, Politics and Knowledge: Friedrich Kratochwil, International Relations, and Domestic Affairs, edited by Oliver Kessler, Rodney B. Hall, Cecelia Lynch and Nicholas Onuf, 191–201. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Tietz, Udo. 1993. “Faktizität, Geltung und Demokratie. Bemerkungen zu Habermas’ Diskurstheorie der Wahrheit und der Normbegründung.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41:333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbert, Cornelia, Risse, Thomas. 2005. “Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective?” Acta Politica 40:351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2007. “Das Normative in der internationalen Politik: Unsichtbare Konsequenzen von Institutionenbildung?” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 14:183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, Antje 2008. The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Richard A. 1997. “Representing Human Rights Violations: Social Contexts and Subjectivities.” In Human Rights, Culture & Context: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Richard A. Wilson, 134–160. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2005. “Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State.” International Organization 59:1045–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar