DISAGREEMENT
1. Preference for agreement
Argumentation is a means of deriving a new consensus from an existing one, see Agreement; Persuasion. Such a construction can be seen as the “macro” expression of a tendency that can be observed at the “micro” level of the interactional sequence, the preference for agreement. This concept is fundamental to the organization of speech turns in interaction.
In an adjacency pair, the first turn “prefers”, i.e., is oriented toward a certain type of second turn. The preferred response to an invitation is acceptance, rather than refusal; proposals are made to be accepted rather than rejected; affirmations are put forward to be ratified, not to be rejected, and so on.
The preferred sequence is unmarked; the second speaker follows the first; agreement is the default. A minimal linguistic mark may suffice: (yes, OK, let’s go…), or a quasi-verbal ratification (mm hm) or a minimal physical action (nod).
The preference for agreement is also reflected in practices such as the avoidance of frontal opposition, the absence of ratification of emerging disagreements and the preference for micro-adjustments to reach an agreement without explicitly bringing up the disagreement for open discussion.
The dispreferred sequence is marked, i.e. it contains specific features such as hesitation, the presence of pre-turns (underlined in S2_2) and justifications (bolded in S2_2):
S1_1 — What are you doing this evening?
S2_1 — Well I don’t know …
S1_2 — Come for a drink!
S2_2 — (silence) hmm, well, you know, I’d rather not, I have got a little work to do.
Giving reasons for accepting an invitation is almost an insult:
S1 — Come to dinner tomorrow night!
S2 — With pleasure, it means that I won’t have to cook, and I will take out the garbage on the way down when I leave home.
This preference for agreement is not a psychological fact, but an observed conversational regularity. It can be compared to Grice’s principle of cooperation, or with Ducrot’s observations on the polemical effect of second turns that do not respect the presuppositions of the first turn, see Presupposition.
2. Conversational disagreements and open arguments
Face-to-face face disagreement is expressed by a series of specific coordinated behaviors, either verbal “I don’t agree”, or paraverbal: struggles for the floor; interruptions; non-collaborative overlaps; accelerated speech flows; raised voices; negative regulators, head shaking, sighs, excitement, loud ironic excesses of signs of agreement, or unaddressed partner behavior, etc.
Sequences of conversational divergence occur randomly; they follow unpredictable patterns; they have a potentially negative impact on the goals of the overall interaction; they introduce a delicate balance between somehow sacrificing a particular view of things in order to maintain good relations with the other party; or taking the risk of damaging the relationship in order to maintain and sharpen extreme disagreements. Most of the time, conversational disagreements are resolved immediately, through incremental micro-adjustments and negotiations, and forgotten
At other times, conversational divergences serve to deepen differences. When conversational divergences are explained and disagreements are ratified, with each position supported by arguments and counterarguments, the interaction becomes highly argumentative. Such interactions can be consequential, remembered, pondered and elaborated upon. They can generate new interactions, that refer back to the original disagreement, where the parties will develop planned interventions. The handling of what has become an issue is now the rationale for these interactions.
3. Enantiosis: Emergent argumentation
The argumentative role of an opponent can develop from his interactional role as a listener, ratifying the existence of an argumentative situation, in which two discourses concerning the same topic are in explicit competition.
During a friendly conversation at a party, between people who hardly know each other:
S1 — if we are going to watch the candidates’ TV debate together tonight, maybe we should know something about each other, personally I vote for candidate Smith.
S2 — oh, well, for me it’s not quite so…
Before this exchange, S2 is simply S1‘s interlocutor. During the exchange, a political divergence emerges, that initiates a restructuring of the interaction, that may lead to a reframing of the interlocutors as political antagonists. From this point, a full-blown argumentative situation can develop, depending on whether or not subsequent moves will thematize the emerging opposition.
The figure of rhetoric called enantiosis seems particularly well suited to designate this transitional moment, in which opposition is looms large without yet being ratified by the participants. The Greek adjective [enantios] can mean:
-
- Being in front of, as in opposite shores facing each other; things offered to one’s gaze.
- With an orientation towards hostility: which stands in front of: “those in front of us”, that is the enemy; in general, the opposing party, the adversary.
- Opposed, contrary to: the opposite party, the opponent (after Bailly, [enantios]).
- Being in front of, as in opposite shores facing each other; things offered to one’s gaze.
According to this development of meaning, in a dialogue, the adjective enantios first refers to the person standing here, in front of you, for example, in the position of the interlocutor. In a second instance, the idea of hostility appears, and then the interlocutor becomes the opponent (the “adversarius” in a rhetorical encounter, Lausberg [1960], §274).
The word enantiosis is also used as a synonym for « antithesis », and can refer to oppositions such as “good vs. bad; even vs. odd”; one vs. multiple” (Dupriez 1984, Énantiose). This kind of binary opposition is characteristic of the sometimes Manichaean diptych corresponding to antagonistic argumentation. The semantic palette of enantiosis covers the dynamics of this emergence and the initial stabilization of the argumentative situation:
| The person facing you > | > with hostility: the opponent > | > the argumentative antithesis, discourse vs. counter-discourse. |
4. “Deep disagreement”
See Dissensus.