Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.145–170

Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues

| Budapest University of Technology and Economics
This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political, environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand, topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in the national energy production.
Keywords: argumentation, deliberation, nuclear energy, policy, polylogue, strategic maneuvering
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The extended polylogue of the expansion
  • 3.The results of public opinion polls and audience demand
  • 4.The topics of discourse and topical potential
  • 5.The presentational devices of an extended controversy
  • 6.Fully-fledged argumentative strategy
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Availability of data
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20003.egr
References (57)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 2009. “Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society.” Proceedings of the 16th NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta UT, 1–12.
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński. 2017. “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation 31 (1): 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek, and Punit Dadlani. 2016. “Argumentation in large, complex practices.” OSSA Conference Archive. 541. [URL]
Arlt, Dorothee, and Jens Wolling. 2015. “Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (7): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. “Public opinion does not exist.” Trans. Axtmann, M. C. In Capitalism, imperialism. Vol. 1 of Communication and class struggle, ed. by Armand Mattleart, and Seth Siegelaub, 124–30. New York: International General.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, James. 1996. The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Culler, Connie. 2015. Good Works: The Topoi of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Travel and Tourism Industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Central Florida, STARS, [URL]
Demeter, Márton. 2018. “Propaganda against the West in the Heart of Europe. A masked official state campaign in Hungary”. Central European Journal of Communication 11 (21): 177–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egres, Dorottya. 2020. “Virtuális vitatér – A Paks 2 polilógus hyperlink hálózatának elemzése” [Virtual venues for argumentation – Analysis of the hyperlink network of the Paks 2 polylogue]. Információs Társadalom 20 (1): 50–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egres, Dorottya, and Petschner Anna. 2020. “The Paks Pact: Topoi in Hungarian Nuclear Energy Discourse.” In Controversies and Interdisciplinarity. Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model. ed. by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna, and Giovanni Scarafile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einsiedel, Edna F. 2008. “Public participation and dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–84. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellwanger, Adam. 2017. “Reinventing doxa: public opinion polling as deliberative discourse.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (3): 181–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Anders. 2012. “Argumentative Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation”. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. “Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardian. 2018. Russia poses greater threat than Isis, new British army chief warns. November 24. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
International Energy Agency. 2017. Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Hungary 2017 Review. IEA Publications. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
Kim, Jiyoun, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Michael Xenos. 2016. ““Shared” information in the age of Big Data: Exploring sentiment expression related to nuclear energy on Twitter.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93 (2): 430–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Silije. 2017. “Characteristics of the mass media’s coverage of nuclear energy and its risk: A literature review.” Sociology Compass 11 (7): 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leff, Michael. 2006. “Up from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36 (2): 203–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levasseur, David G. 2005. “The role of public opinion in policy argument: An examination of public opinion rhetoric in the federal budget process.” Argumentation and Advocacy 41 (3): 152–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010. “Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation. Sides, positions, and cases.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 151–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues.” Discourse & Communication 10 (6): 553–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and J. Anthony Blair. 2011. Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? OSSA Conference Archive. 521. [URL]
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed. 2015. “Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media.” In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Catherine Helen Palczewski, 291–7. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2019. “Environmental argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Dima. 2018. “Standing standpoints and argumentative associates. What is at stake in a public political argument?” Argumentation 33 (3): 307–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus. 2018. “Discovering argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument mining.” Argumentation 32 (3): 397–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noella-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1974. “The Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 24 (2): 43–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novikau, Aliaksandr. 2017. “Nuclear power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati. 2016. “Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.” Argumentation 30 (4): 467–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble. How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780143121237.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pidgeon, Nick, and Christina C. Demski. 2012. “From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 68 (4): 41–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prati, Gabriele, and Bruna Zani. 2012. “The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values.” Environment and Behavior 45 (6): 782–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara. 2009. Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonovits, Bori. 2020. “The Public Perception of the Migration Crisis from the Hungarian Point of View. Evidence from the Field.” In Geographies of Asylum in Europe and the Role of European Localities, ed. by Brigit Glorus and Jeroen Doomernik. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarlós, Gábor. 2014. Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary. Ph.D Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “A közvéleménykutatások szerepe a magyarországi atomenergia diskurzus alakításában [The role of opinion polls in shaping the nuclear discourse in Hungary].” Új jel-kép: kommunikáció, közvélemény, média 4 (1): 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Miért áll a konfliktusok középpontjában az atomenergia? [Why is nuclear energy at the center of conflicts?].” Presentation, Budapest, March 2015.Google Scholar
. 2015c. “Kockázatok és előnyök megjelenése az atomenergia magyarországi kommunikációs narratíváiban [Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Communication Narratives of Nuclear Energy in Hungary].” Ph.D Dissertation summary. Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Than, Krisztina. 2015. Special Report: Inside Hungary’s $10.8 billion nuclear deal with Russia. Reuters, March 30, World News. [URL] (February 6, 2020)
Thogmorton, James A. 1993. “Planning as a rhetorical activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in Chicago.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (3): 334–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Cristopher W. 2006. “Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise.” Argumentation 20 (4): 447–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Revisiting Aristotle’s Topoi”. OSSA Conference Archive 141. Available at: [URL]
2015. The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turcanu, Catrinel, Tanja Perko, and Erik Laes. 2014. “Public participation processes related to nuclear research installations: What are the driving factors behind participation intention?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (3): 331–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2009. “Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Argumentation in political deliberation, ed. by Marcin Lewiński, and Dima Mohammed, 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation.” In Contextualizing pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woo, Jongroul, HyungBin Moon, Jongsu Lee, and Jinyong Jang. 2017. “Public attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea.” Energy & Environment 28 (4): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylönen, Marja, Tapio Litmanen, Matti Kojo, and Pirita Lindell. 2015. “The (de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima.” Public Understanding of Science 26 (3): 260–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2009. “Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering.” ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 115–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Egres, Dorottya & Gábor Sarlós
2024. Nuclear perceptions from radioactive blue to sustainable green: The EU taxonomy as reflection of a divided public. Journal of Public Affairs 24:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.