Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T13:39:51.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varieties of political rhetorical reasoning: norm types, scorekeepers, and political projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2019

Sasikumar S. Sundaram Open the ORCID record for Sasikumar S. Sundaram [Opens in a new window]
Sasikumar S. Sundaram*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of São Paulo (USP), 315, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo05508-900, Brazil School of International Service, American University, Washington, D.C., USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: sundaram7684@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does rhetoric work in the pursuit of political projects in international relations? This article analyzes how rhetoric-wielding political actors engage in reasoning to bolster their position by drawing upon norms that underwrite interactions, and audiences as scorekeepers evaluate the reasoning by making a series of inferences. I call this mechanism rhetorical reasoning. Building on the existing classification of norms in constructivist international relations (IR) and utilizing three distinct norm types – instrumental, institutional, and moral – I show the different processes through which political actors deploy rhetoric to legitimize and justify political projects and the distinct logics through which scorekeepers make inferences and evaluate the project. This article contributes to IR theories of argumentation by providing a sharp conceptualization of political rhetoric and actor–audience relationships in the game. I illustrate the mechanism of rhetorical reasoning using Brazil's UN peace enforcement operation in Haiti in 2004 to give empirical evidence for the role of institutional norm type in patterns of rhetorical reasoning and contestations in international politics. Paying attention to political rhetoric in the actor–scorekeepers' relationships in this way clarifies important issues regarding the varieties of political projects and the different role of normativity in the game.

Keywords

rhetoricaudiencenorm typesreasoningBrazilhumanitarian intervention
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 358 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3 (1): 1–36.10.1017/S175297191000031XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1998. “Action, Norms, and Practical Reasoning.” Noûs 32: 127–39.10.1111/0029-4624.32.s12.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Karen E. 2005. “CARICOM, the Myth of Sovereignty, and Aspirational Economic Integration.” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 31 (1): 146–206.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, Eriksson, Lina, Goodin, Robert E., and Southwood, Nicholas. 2013. Explaining Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654680.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burges, Sean W. 2009. Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.10.5744/florida/9780813033334.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, Julia D. 2013. “Swimming against the Tide: Venezuela and Peace Operations.” In South America and Peace Operations: Coming of Age, edited by Kenkel, Kai Michael, 169–87. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2002. Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CREDN. 2004. “Senado Federal. Ata Da Reunião Da Comissão de Relações Exteriores de Defensa Nacional Do Senado Federal e Da Comissão de Relações Exteriores e Defensa Nacional Da Camara Dos Deputados Realizada No Dia 12 de Maio de 2004. [National Congress. Federal Senate. Minutes of the Foreign Affairs Committee Meeting of the National Defense of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Relations and National Defense of the Chamber of Deputies.” Brasilia: Congresso Nacional [National Congress]. http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-permanentes/credn/documentos/notas-taquigraficas/NT12052004.pdf.Google Scholar
de Almeida, Paulo Roberto. 2010. “Never before Seen in Brazil: Luis Inácio Lula Da Silva's Grand Diplomacy.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 53 (2): 160–77.10.1590/S0034-73292010000200009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2009. “The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case.” International Organization 63 (1): 33–65.10.1017/S002081830909002XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sá Guimarães, Feliciano, and Herminia de Almeida, Maria. 2018. “Brazil's Entrepreneurial Power in World Politics: The Role of Great Powers and Regional Politics for Successful Entrepreneurship.” International Journal 73 (4): 518–34.10.1177/0020702018810876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamint, Rut. 2013. “From Fear to Humanitarianism: Changing Patterns in Argentina's Involvement in Peace Operations.” In South American and Peace Operations: Coming of Age, edited by Kenkel, Kai Michael, 132–50. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diniz, Eugenio. 2007. “Brazil: Peacekeeping and the Evolution of Foreign Policy.” In Capacity Building for Peacekeeping: The Case of Haiti, edited by Fishel, John T. and Andrés, Sáenz, 91–111. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.Google Scholar
Ekström, Karin, and Alles, Leonardo Miguel. 2012. “Brazilian Foreign Policy Under Lula: From Non-Intervention to Non-Indifference.” Political Perspectives 6 (2), 9–29.Google Scholar
Eubanks, Ralph T. 1986. “An Axiological Analysis of Chiam Perelman's Theory of Practical Reasoning.” In Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman, edited by Golden, James L. and Pilotta, Joseph J., 69–84. The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co.10.1007/978-94-009-4674-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, Paul. 2004. “Who Removed Aristide?” London Review of Books 26 (8): 28–31.Google Scholar
Fatton, Robert Jr.. 2006. “The Fall of Aristide and Haiti's Current Predicament.” In Haiti: Hope for a Fragile State, edited by Shamsie, Yasmine and Thompson, Andrew S., 15–24. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Feldmann, Andreas E., and Montes, Juan Esteban. 2013. “Learning to Be Likeminded: Chile's Involvement in Global Security and Peace Operations since the End of the Cold War.” In South America and Peace Operations: Coming of Age, edited by Kenkel, Kai Michael, 151–68. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2004. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follietti, Gilda. 2005. “La Participación Argentina En Haití: El Papel Del Congreso.” Revista Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad 19 (1): 37–56.Google Scholar
Frost, Mervyn. 1996. Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511521706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2009. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E. 2015. “The Rhetoric of Appeasement: Hitler's Legitimation and British Foreign Policy, 1938–39.” Security Studies 24 (1): 95–130.10.1080/09636412.2015.1001216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E., and Krebs, Ronald R.. 2015. “Rhetoric, Legitimation, and Grand Strategy.” Security Studies 24 (1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, Maira Siman. 2016. “Analysing Interventionism beyond Conventional Foreign Policy Rationales: The Engagement of Brazil in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH).” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 852–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2012. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe?: Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallward, Peter. 2008. Damning the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Heine, Jorge. 2006. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Latin America and Multilateralism after 9/11.” In Multilateralism under Challenge? Power, International Order, and Structural Change, edited by Newman, Edward, Thakur, Ramesh, and Tirman, John, 481–503. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Monica. 2007. “South American Intervention in Haiti.” FRIDE Comment. Brussels: Fundación paralas Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE).Google Scholar
Howland, Todd. 2006. “Peacekeeping and Conformity with Human Rights Law: How MINUSTAH Falls Short in Haiti.” International Peacekeeping 13 (4): 462–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelss, Hendrik. 2017. “After Decision-Making: The Operationalization of Norms in International Relations.” International Theory 9 (3): 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2005. “The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 1992–2003.” International Organization 59 (3): 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John, and Wright, Thomas. 2008. “Rising Powers and Global Institutions: A Century Foundation Report.” New York: The Century Foundation.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick. 2006. “Making Sense of Making Sense: Configurational Analysis and the Double Hermeneutic.” In Interpretation and Method, edited by Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, 264–80. London, England: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2010. “South America's Emerging Power: Brazil as Peacekeeper.” International Peacekeeping 17 (5): 644–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2011. “Interest, Identity and Brazilian Peacekeeping Policy.” The Perspectives of World Politics 3 (2): 9–35.Google Scholar
Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2013. “Five Generations of Peace Operations: From the ‘Thin Blue Line’ to ‘Painting a Country Blue’.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 56 (1): 122–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornprobst, Markus. 2007. “Argumentation and Compromise: Ireland's Selection of the Territorial Status Quo Norm.” International Organization 61 (1): 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornprobst, Markus. 2017. “Framing, Resonance and War: Foregrounds and Backgrounds of Cultural Congruence.” European Journal of International Relations 25 (1): 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1997. “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason.” In Ethics and Practical Reason, edited by Cullity, Garrett and Gaut, Berys, 215–54. New York, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2018. Praxis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Ronald R., and Lobasz, Jennifer K.. 2007. “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq.” Security Studies 16 (3): 409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Ronald R., and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2007. “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric.” European Journal of International Relations 13 (1): 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Steven. 2015. “Norms and Habits: Brandom on the Sociality of Action.” European Journal of Philosophy 23 (2): 248–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Cecelia. 2014. Interpreting International Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Malamud, Andrés. 2011. “A Leader Without Followers? The Growing Divergence Between the Regional and Global Performance of Brazilian Foreign Policy.” Latin American Politics and Society 53 (3): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, James. 2015. “Situating Speech: A Rhetorical Approach to Political Strategy.” Political Studies 63(1): 25–42.10.1111/1467-9248.12039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, Conor, Way, Jonathan, and Whiting, Daniel, eds. 2018. Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of External Relations. 2008. Brazil Foreign Policy Handbook. Brasilia: Alexandre de Gusmão Foundation FUNAG.Google Scholar
Ministry of External Relations. 2013. Brazil in the United Nations (1946–2011). Brasilia: Alexandre de Gusmão Foundation (FUNAG).Google Scholar
Müller, Harald. 2004. “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 10(3): 395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1990. “Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society.” International Organization 44 (4): 479–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mahoney, Joseph. 2017. “Making the Real: Rhetorical Adduction and the Bangladesh Liberation War.” International Organization 71 (2): 317–48.10.1017/S0020818317000054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Rodger A. 2001. “Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction.” European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim. 1979. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. London, England: D. Reidel Publishing Co.10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podur, Justin. 2012. Haiti's new dictatorship: the coup, the earthquake and the UN occupation. Toronto: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62 (2): 257–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Gregory A. 1997. “Problems and Prospects in the Study of International Norms.” Mershon International Studies Review 41 (2): 205–45.10.2307/222668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “’Let's Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54 (1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Roberto, and Tokatlian, Juan Gabriel. 2003. El Lugar de Brasil En La Política Exterior Argentina [The Place of Brazil in the Foreign Policy of Argentina]. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” International Organization 55 (1): 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnably, Stephen J. 1994. “The Santiago Commitment as a Call to Democracy in the United States: Evaluating the OAS Role in Haiti, Peru, and Guatemala.” The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 25: 393–587.Google Scholar
Seitenfus, Ricardo. 2014. Haiti: Dilemas e Fracassos Internacionais. Ijuí: Editora UNIJUÍ.Google Scholar
Soares De Lima, Maria Regina, and Hirst, Mônica. 2006. “Brazil as an Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice and Responsibilities.” International Affairs 82 (1): 21–40.10.1111/j.1468-2346.2006.00513.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuenkel, Oliver, and Tourinho, Marcos. 2014. “Regulating Intervention: Brazil and the Responsibility to Protect.” Conflict, Security & Development 14 (4): 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2018. Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. London, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tokatlian, Juan Gabriel 2005. “Intervención En Haití, Misión Frustrada. Una Crítica de América Latina (Intervention in Haití, Unsuccessful Mission. A Latin America Critique).” FRIDE, October.Google Scholar
von Einsiedel, Sebastian, and Malone, David M.. 2006. “Peace and Democracy for Haiti: A UN Mission Impossible?” International Relations 20 (2): 153–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Scott D. 2012. “’Framing’ the Copenhagen School: Integrating the Literature on Threat Construction.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40 (2): 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Bernhard, and Wanderer, Jeremy, eds. 2010. Reading Brandom: On Making It Explicit. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2001. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2014. Theory of Contestation. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W. 2013. “Kant on Practical Reason.” In Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretive Essays, edited by Timmons, Mark and Baiasu, Sorin, 50–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar