Why discourse matters only sometimes: effective arguing beyond the nation-state
Why discourse matters only sometimes: effective arguing beyond the nation-state
复制标题
为什么话语有时才重要：超越民族国家的有效争论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
D. Panke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Panke
摘要协议前和协议后的话语是国际关系不可或缺的一部分。然而，正如对欧洲司法话语的实证分析所显示的那样，它们只是有时才重要。哈贝马斯和社会心理学关于有效辩论的方法不能充分解释话语成功的差异。这需要一个细粒度的视角：只有当参与者分享适合所涉问题的标准时，他们才能共同评估论点的质量并逐步达成共识。如果没有这种针对具体问题的参考标准，行为者就会各执一词，异议就会占上风。本文实证说明了主体间性有效性的话语的有效性的重要性，并测试其核心主张对替代建构主义和理性主义的解释。
Abstract Pre- and post-agreement discourses are an integral part of international relations. Yet, they only matter sometimes as an empirical analysis of European judicial discourses shows. State of the art Habermasisan and social psychology approaches on effective arguing cannot sufficiently explain variation in the success of discourses. This requires a fine-grained perspective: Only if actors share yardsticks fitting to the issue at stake, they can commonly assess the quality of arguments and incrementally develop a consensus. If such issue-specific reference standards are absent, actors talk at cross-purposes and dissent prevails. The article empirically illustrates the importance of intersubjective validity for the effectiveness of discourses and tests its central claim against alternative constructivist and rationalist explanations.