{"id":4887,"date":"2021-10-20T10:25:27","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T08:25:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4887"},"modified":"2025-04-02T08:03:28","modified_gmt":"2025-04-02T06:03:28","slug":"dissociation-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/dissociation-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Dissociation"},"content":{"rendered":"

DISSOCIATION<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

1. Dissociation as a fundamental argumentative technique<\/span><\/h2>\n

The concept of dissociation<\/em> was introduced by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca. According to them, there are two types of argumentation techniques: \u201cassociation and dissociation\u201d ([1958], p. 190).<\/p>\n

The former of these concerns two or more propositions<\/em>, that make up an argument, while the latter operates on a single concept<\/em>.
\nThe technique of dissociation<\/em> is thus placed on a par with the large and varied set of association <\/em>techniques, i.e., argument schemes. This shows the importance that Perelman attaches to the concept.<\/p>\n

2.Dissociation as a conceptual reorganization<\/span><\/h2>\n

Perelman defines dissociation as the splitting of the meaning of a word or concept, in order to avoid a contradiction<\/strong>.<\/span>
\nThe meaning of the problematic term T<\/strong> is reformulated as containing an internal contradiction<\/strong>, \u201can incompatibility\u201d, \u201can antinomy\u201d, and dissociation is the mechanism by which it can be resolved ([1958], 550-609).
\nT<\/strong> is split into a term T1<\/sub><\/strong> and a term T2<\/sub><\/strong>, this operation involves a negative evaluation of T1<\/sub><\/strong> and a positive evaluation of T2<\/sub><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Dissociation appears as a kind of \u201csemantic cleansing\u201d, by which an unwanted content or connotation, T1<\/sub><\/strong>, can be disposed of. The concept of reality<\/em> can thus be divided, \u00ab\u00a0dissociated\u00a0\u00bb, into the pair T1<\/sub><\/strong> = appearance<\/em> vs. T2 <\/sub><\/strong>= reality<\/em>, the latter being \u201cthe true reality\u201d.<\/p>\n

While the primitive status of what is given as the starting point of dissociation is undecided and indeterminate, the dissociation in Terms 1 and 2 will value the aspects corresponding to term 2 and will devalue the aspects that oppose it. Term I, the appearance<\/em>, in the narrow sense of this word, is only illusion and error.
\n(Perelman 1977, p. 141)<\/span><\/p>\n

Dissociation is the key operation for extracting a concept from the ordinary meaning of a word, not for analyzing a concept as a synthesis of two distinct but equally important concepts, see distinguo.<\/p>\n

3. Linguistic aspects of dissociation
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

Reasoning by dissociation is characterized first of all by the opposition between appearance<\/em> and reality<\/em>. This can be applied to any notion, by using adjectives such as apparent<\/em>, illusory<\/em> on the one hand, real<\/em>, true<\/em> on the other. To use an expression such as apparent peace<\/em> or genuine democracy<\/em> is to indicate the absence of genuine peace<\/em>, or the presence of an apparent democracy<\/em>: one of these adjectives refers to the other. (Id.<\/em>, p. 147)<\/span><\/p>\n

The linguistic markers of dissociations are very diverse:<\/p>\n

A prefix such as pseudo-<\/em> (pseudo-atheist<\/em>), quasi<\/em>– not<\/em>– the adjective alleged<\/em>, the use of quotes indicate that we are dealing with the term I, while the capital letter (Being<\/em>), the definite article (the<\/span> solution<\/em>), the adjective unique<\/em> or true<\/em> denote a term II. (Id<\/em>., p. 148)<\/p>\n

Other dissociations are stabilized as pairs of antithetical terms or \u201cphilosophical pairs\u201d such as \u201copinion \/ science; sense knowledge \/ rational knowledge; body \/ soul; just \/ legal, etc.\u201d (Perelman [1958], 563). Some of these dissociated pairs are traditional and constitute the oppositions that generate foundational ideological discourses.<\/p>\n

As with all antonymic pairs, one term is linguistically preferred to the other, and this preference can be reversed. The T1<\/sub><\/strong> vs.<\/em> T2 <\/sub><\/strong>opposition \u201csuperficial vs.<\/em> deep\u201d can be reversed by praising the superficial \u2014 \u201cthe skin is the deepest thing there is\u201d (Paul Val\u00e9ry). The pair, \u201crhetoric,<\/em> argumentation\u201d can be seen as an \u00ab\u00a0antagonist pair\u00a0\u00bb, engaged in permanent revolving evaluations.<\/p>\n

4. Dissociation as shielding<\/span><\/h2>\n

Dissociation is a dialogue strategy:<\/p>\n

X: \u2014\u00a0Well old boy, that’s democracy!
\n<\/em>Y: \u2014\u00a0There is democracy and there is democracy.<\/em><\/p>\n

X seems to have the upper hand in the discussion. Y resists with a typical dissociation that allows him to get rid of the embarrassing democracy proposed by X as a pseudo-democracy. The reply introduces a stasis of definition<\/p>\n

Dissociation has a concessive facet. For example, one might assume that some intellectuals would make good businessmen, while conceding that they are only a tiny minority. Dissociation does the same thing, but by completely excluding of the subcategory \u00ab\u00a0intellectual businessmen\u00a0\u00bb from the general category, \u201cintellectuals\u201d:<\/p>\n

(1) \u00a0\u00a0 S1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0When it comes to business, intellectuals are hopeless
\n<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S2 \u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Or they are not really intellectuals<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S1_1 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0Germans drink beer.
\n<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u2014 Not Hans!
\n<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S1_2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Normal, Hans is not a real German<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In (2) S2<\/strong> refutes S1<\/strong>1<\/sub><\/strong> by producing of an opposite case. S12<\/sub><\/strong> recognizes that Hans is German and does not drink beer, and maintains his original claim by splitting the category \u201cGerman\u201d into \u00ab\u00a0true Germans vs.<\/em> not true Germans\u00a0\u00bb. The modification of the argument may or may not be justified; S1<\/strong> may have responded:<\/p>\n

S1_3 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 But Hans is not a real German, he grew up in the United States<\/em><\/p>\n

– Suppose that Americans drink less beer than Germans. S1_3<\/strong> introduces a line of justification showing that Hans deviates from the stereotype of the true German.
\nThis new category created by S1_3<\/strong> is based upon an explicit criterion, that is independent of the current discussion. In the previous dialogue, the only contextually available criterion is \u00ab\u00a0beer drinking\u00a0\u00bb. The word Germans<\/em> in S1<\/strong> refers to all Germans; if Germans are redefined as true Germans<\/em> on the basis of the criterion, \u201cGermans who drink beer<\/em>\u201d, then the statement S11<\/sub><\/strong> is indeed compelling, since \u201cGermans who drink beer<\/em>\u201d do\u00a0drink beer.<\/p>\n

Category rectification serves to exclude individuals from the category being reanalyzed. In politics, this strategy opposes the, \u201ctrue Syldavian\u201d as good citizens in order to exclude other citizens as, \u201cbad citizens\u201d. In practice, dissociation transforms a previously necessary and sufficient condition (to be a Syldavian one must be a Syldavian citizen<\/em>) into a necessary one, \u00ab\u00a0to be a true Syldavian, one must have Syldavian nationality and share our ideology\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the following case, \u201cLa R\u00e9union\u201d [1]<\/a>, that is \u201cthe people living in La R\u00e9union\u201d, is opposed to \u201cthe true R\u00e9union\u201d, an ad hoc<\/em> subcategory of this group.<\/p>\n

Roland Sicard (RS) is the host of the television program. Marine Le Pen is the candidate for the National Front (\u201cFront National\u201d, a far-right party) in the 2012 French presidential elections. Gilbert Collard (GC) is a lawyer, president of her support committee.<\/span>
\nRS<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0 \u2014 good morning Gilbert Collard [\u2026] er- a word about Marine Le Pen\u2019s trip to La R\u00e9union\\ she was heckled, one feels that the National Front candidates are still in a lot of trouble abroad\/?<\/span>
\nGC<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0 \u2014 Listen I know La R\u00e9union very well because I was there very often as a lawyer and then in particularly sensitive cases and\u2014 there are: uh, two R\u00e9unions uh there’s a R\u00e9union which is instrumentalized that organizes the usual reception committee for Marine Le Pen they’re quite insignificant eh\\ well and then ther’s the real R\u00e9union made up of men with divergent views of \u2013 women with opi \u2013<\/span> but that’s no more difficult in the overseas departments than in metropolitan France anyway\\ no I don’t think what makes it difficult is the instrumentalization of the media hmm […]<\/span>
\nTV program [Home Truths<\/em>] France 2, 08 Feb., 2012.[2]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

S. Opposite words<\/a>; Categorization<\/a>; Orientation<\/a><\/p>\n

5. Distinguo and dissociation<\/span><\/h2>\n

According to Perelman, the dissociation technique is, \u201chardly mentioned by traditional rhetoric, for it is especially important for the analysis of systematic philosophical thought\u201d (1977, p. 139). An example is taken from Kant, for whom natural sciences postulate a universal determinism <\/em>while morality postulates the freedom <\/em>of the individual; hence the necessity of dissociating the concept reality<\/em>, a confused notion, into a phenomenal <\/em>reality, in which determinism reigns, and a noumenal <\/em>reality in which the individual can freely choose and act on his decision.
\nThese sub-concepts are in a complementary oppositional relationship, as contradictories. The goal is not to nullify one of these dimensions, as in the case of dissociation.<\/p>\n

Ancient rhetoric has the concept of distinguo. The distinguo is an operation of clarification performed on a concept that is considered possibly \u00ab\u00a0confusing\u00a0\u00bb. In order to clarify the concept, the distinguo performs a kind of content analysis, and rearranges the semantic and cognitive content of the word in different subdomains, for example to clearly define the position of the subject of an investigation, as in example (1) (\u00a71)
\nSuch an operation is the basic task of the lexicographer when she decides whether the signifier to be defined has only one meaning, or several related meanings (polysemy), or several unrelated meanings (homonymy). At this point, the operation does not involve any special treatment or evaluation of the relatively independent semantic or cognitive subdomains.<\/p>\n

Dissociation goes one step further by deciding that one of these components is to be evaluated positively, the other negatively and considered negligible for the discussion.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> The R\u00e9union Island is an overseas French department, East of Madagascar.<\/span>
\n[2]<\/a> TV program Les Quatre V\u00e9rit\u00e9s<\/em> France 2. Feb. 8, 2012.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DISSOCIATION 1. Dissociation as a fundamental argumentative technique The concept of dissociation was introduced by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca. According to them, there are two types of argumentation techniques: \u201cassociation and dissociation\u201d ([1958], p. 190). The former of these concerns two or more propositions, that make up an argument, while the latter operates on a single […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4887","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4887"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4887\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13920,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4887\/revisions\/13920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}