Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation in the Media
Edited by Darrin Hicks
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 3:1] 2014
► pp. 57–82

The U.S. Congressional Record as a technology of representation

Toward a materialist theory of institutional argumentation

| Macalester College, Saint Paul, MN, USA
Focusing on the historical controversies surrounding the development of the print records of the U.S. congressional debates, this essay explores how human, technological, and discursive agencies come together to constitute institutional argumentative practice. Examining the U.S. Congressional Record through the lens of Bruno Latour’s concept of dingpolitik reveals that as a technology of representation print records work less as mediators and more as agents of institutional contextualization. Print records do more than translate arguments from oral to written form or transfer arguments from the public sphere to the state. Rather, they assemble the disparate elements that constitute the terrains of governance, the character of political issues, and the norms of congressional deliberation. Hence, the material dynamics of congressional deliberation prompt not only a reconsideration of what and who is being represented by Congress, but also a methodological reorientation from normative to constitutive perspectives on institutional argumentation.
Keywords: context, print records, argumentation, representation, Latour, Congress, parliamentary debates, media
Published online: 7 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.1.04ker
References (69)
A Friend to Simplicity. (2 May 1789) “For the Centinel.” The Massachusetts Centinel .
Annals of Congress (26 September, 1789), 1st Cong., 1st Sess.
(9 January, 1790), 1st Cong., 2nd Sess.
Antaki, Charles and Leudar, Ivan. 2001. “Recruiting the Record: Using Opponents’ Exact Words in Parliamentary Argumentation,” Text 211: 467–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armitage, David. 2000. “Edmund Burke and Reason of State.” Journal of the History of Ideas 611: 617-34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, Bernard. 1967. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bayley, Paul. 2004. “Introduction: The Whys and Wherefores of Analysing Parliamentary Discourse.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse , ed. by Paul Bayley, 1-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bessette, Joseph M. 1994. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Botero, Giovanni. 1956. The Reason of State . London: Routledge & K. Paul.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1949. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774.” In Burke’s Politics: Selected Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke on Reform, Revolution, and War , ed. by Ross J. S. Hoffman, and Paul Levack. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Carbo, Teresa. 2004. “Parliamentary Discourse When Things Go Wrong: Mapping Histories, Contexts, Conflicts.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse , ed. by Paul Bayley, 301-338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Congressional Record (24 March, 1873). 43rd Cong., Special Session of the Senate.
Congressional Record (2 March, 1875). 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
Currie, David P. 1997. The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period, 1789-1801 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 2005. Paper Machine . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2012. “Democratic Representation and the Constituency Paradox.” Perspectives on Politics 101: 599-616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2011. “In Context: Giving Contextualization its Rightful Place in the Study of Argumentation.” Argumentation 251: 141-61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenton-Smith, Ben. 2008. “Discourse Structure and Political Performance in Adversarial Parliamentary Questioning” Journal of Language and Politics 71: 99-120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-79 . New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Frankel, Oz. 2006. States of Inquiry: Social Investigations and Print Culture in Nineteenth-Century Britain and the United States . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere , ed. by Craig Calhoun, 109-142. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gardey, Delphine. 2005. “Turning Public Discourse into an Authentic Artifact.” In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy , ed. by Bruno Latour, and Peter Weibel, 836-843. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gazette of the United States. (27 May 1789).
. (13 January 1790).
Gray, Nicole H. 2011. “Recording the Sounds of ‘Words that Burn’: Reproductions of Public Discourse in Abolitionist Journalism.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 411: 363-86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 2000. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, James L. 1962. 100 GPO Years: A History of United States Public Printing . Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Hicks, Darrin, and Lenore Langsdorf. 1999. “Regulating Disagreement, Constituting Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy Argumentation 131: 139-60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
History of Congress (4 December, 1800), 6th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 798.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, Henrike. 2005. “E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator,” Argumentation 191: 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. (5 February, 1791). “Manner of Authenticating Printed Editions of the Laws,” American State Papers, Miscellaneous: Vol. 1, 1st Cong., 3rd Sess.
Kafka, Ben. 2012. The Demon of Writing: Powers and Failures of Paperwork . New York: Zone Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keremidchieva, Zornitsa. 2012. “Legislative Reform, the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, and the Crisis of Women’s Political Representation.” Women & Language 351: 13-38.Google Scholar
2013. “The Congressional Debates on the 19th Amendment: Jurisdictional Rhetoric and the Assemblage of the US Body Politic.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 991: 51-73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr. 1996. “Assessing Legislative Deliberation: A Preface to Empirical Analysis.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 211: 501-19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1986. “Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 61: 1-40.Google Scholar
1987. Science in Action . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
2005. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public.” In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy , ed. by Bruno Latour, and Peter Weibel, 19-41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Law, John. 1986. “On Methods of Long-Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation and the Portuguese Route to India.” In Power, Action and Belief: A new Sociology of Knowledge? , ed. by John Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lipmann, Walter. 1927/1993. The Phantom Public . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 971: 515-28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Elizabeth Gregory. 1942. “Reporting the Debates of Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 231: 141-8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercieca, Jennifer R. 2010. Founding Fictions . Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Peter. 1990. “On the Interrelationship between Accounting and the State.” Accounting, Organizations & Society 151: 315-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Peter, and Ted O’Leary. 1987. “Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person.” Accounting, Organizations & Society 121: 235-65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mucciaroni, Gary, and Paul J. Quirk. 2006. Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Orr, Linda. 1987. “The Blind Spot of History: Logography.” Yale French Studies 731: 190-214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plug, H. Jose. 2010. “Institutional Boundaries on the Evaluation of Argumentation in Legislative Discussions.” Legisprudence 41: 53-68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riles, Annelise (ed.). 2006. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Craig. 2010. The Passport in America: The History of a Document . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Zon. 1942. “Are Speeches in Congress Reported Accurately?” Quarterly Journal of Speech 231: 8-12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Nicholas, and Peter Miller. 1992. “Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” British Journal of Sociology 431: 173-205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadurski, Woiciech. 2011. “Reason of State and Public Reason.” Legal Studies Research Paper N. 11/68, Sydney Law School.
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 51: 297-318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sellers, Patrick. 2010. Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U. S. Congress . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sieckmann, Jan. 2010. “Legislative Argumentation and Democratic Legitimation.” Legisprudence 41: 69-91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef. 1992. “The Parliamentary Hansard ‘Verbatim’ Report: The Written Construction of Spoken Discourse.” Language & Literature 1 (2):101-19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Gerald B. H., and Donald R. Wolfensberger. 1994. “The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the House and Proposal for Reform.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 311: 321-70.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Striphas, Ted. 2006. “Communication as Translation.” In Communication as…: Perspectives on Theory , ed. by Gregory J. Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas, 232-241. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Congressional Globe (26 January, 1870), 42nd Cong., 2nd sess., pt. 2.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2004. “Text and Context of Parliamentary Debates.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse , ed. by Paul Bayley, 339-372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walters, William. 2002. “The Power of Inscription: Beyond Social Construction and Deconstruction in European Integration Studies.” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 311: 83-108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Michael. 1987. “Textuality and Legitimacy in the Printed Constitution,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 97 (pt. 1): 59-84.Google Scholar
1990. The Letters of the Republic . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Inoue, Miyako
2018. Word for Word: Verbatim as Political Technologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 47:1 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Rountree, John
2018. Gridlock and Rhetorics of Distrust. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 21:4 ► pp. 607 ff. DOI logo
Keremidchieva, Zornitsa
2015. TheEgoistLifestyle. Feminist Media Studies 15:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.