Argumentative resistance and non-ideal argumentation

ABSTRACT
This talk challenges the neutral view of argumentation according to which all participants enter argumentative exchanges on equal footing. Drawing on feminist argumentation theory, I argue that power dynamics play a role in determining who gets to speak and what counts as a legitimate contribution to the argumentative interaction. In contexts shaped by social asymmetries and unjust norms, marginalized speakers often face exclusionary practices that restrict their argumentative agency. I introduce the concept of argumentative resistance as a discursive strategy by marginalized and oppressed individuals in argumentative settings governed by unjust norms. I identify two forms of argumentative resistance: the refusal to provide reasons when justificatory demands are perceived as unfair, and the refusal to consider certain arguments as worth of engaging in a dialectical exchange. Far from being irrational or uncooperative, these forms of resistance challenge the norms governing argumentative exchanges and expose their underlying injustices. The talk calls for a non-ideal approach to argumentation that takes into account the social and political dimensions of argumentative practices, especially in power-imbalanced contexts.