![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseToday is one of those days when something as simple as a daily horoscope sets me thinking, especially when my horoscope for today told me to ‘tone down my alpha-male dominance’ for a change because it makes me look confrontational. But amusement over the matter aside it does make a certain sort of twisted sense because certain debating styles can be seen as confrontational by those not used to them. In this case I’m of course talking about academic discourse.
In an average conversation where participants are sharing ideas and information there’s usually no need for any party to qualify their information or opinion with a source. If a friend double-checks with me that Bulgaria is part of the EU these days there’s no need for them to qualify why they think that or for me to cite the actual treaty, likewise because it’s my business to know; if I say that Moldova isn’t part of the EU they’re not likely to ask me for a reference, though I could cite as the most recent source an interview with the Moldovan president on Russia Today a little while ago where he discussed Moldovan accession and the question of Transnistria. But being a casual discussion there wasn’t the need for citations. In everyday dialogue the average person will be discussing matters casually outside of the academic context. When my father discusses the English translation of a specific word in Burmese usage, that he doesn’t feel is thoroughly explained in the translation I’m not going to ask him for the etymological background of said expression. I take it as a given that his knowledge of Burmese usage of Pali in a theological context is far greater than mine because it is and should he have something that he wants to query he can consult directly with varying international sources, secular and religious, covering a range of native and non-native Burmese speakers. Most importantly then in both these examples; they’re not cases of academic discourse.
I complained about half a year ago to a friend that I seemingly couldn’t have regular conversations anymore and instead just seemed to discourse theory at any and everyone. And that honestly has been the case because having a serious academic discussion isn’t the same as having a day to day conversation. Academic discussion being a matter of arguing points and backing up those arguments with citation and viable conjecture. In an academic context it’s not enough for me to suggest that the policy of the EU is enacted by and created by member states; I need to qualify that statement with a citation, be that in the form of a page in a study or a quotation.
"Europeanization is a two-way process: European integration shapes domestic policies, politics and polities, but Member States also project themselves by seeking to shape the trajectory of European integration in ways that suit national interests."
- Bomberg, E. & Peterson, J. cited in Akçapar, B., 2007. Turkey’s New European Era. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. p. 62
Without a citation such a statement is academically tenuous at best unless the rest of my write-up already covers similar citations and I’m merely summarising a section or if my aim is to give evidence of this phenomenon and this is the conclusion I have reached at the end. Of course if I’m talking to my lieutenant and arguing for the UK to take a greater part in the EU I can argue this point without citing my sources. Thus one style of discourse doesn’t require that participants qualify their assertions while the other does and should those qualifications not meet an acceptable, pre-determined standard ensures that said argument is suitably negated.
Which shows a clear distinction. Thus as flippantly as I was intending the comment; it is entirely likely that academic debate has changed the way I debate in a general context. Being used to citing my sources and backing up my arguments means that I’ll do it outside of an academic context too and in a more casual environment that probably does appear relatively confrontational. While I may curb that instinct somewhat in a general context, if I am asked for citations or to qualify my position the effect is akin to flipping a switch and activating an academic discourse mode; something which simply isn’t expected in casual discussion. And since this manner of discourse isn’t expected it transgresses the accepted norms of casual conversation and therefore challenges them by introducing a subversive and thus quite likely antagonistic thread into the general narrative, which operates in exactly the same way as minority discourse challenges established ‘common knowledge’ in a state system. The challenge then doesn’t come necessarily in the form the outsider dialogue being aggressive, though academic vs. general discourse would likely qualify as an aggressive debating style vs. a less confrontational one except in cases where the arguments being made through general discourse are emotive in nature, but rather due to its subversive nature. In challenging the established norm through difference it is always likely to be the case that there is some conflict as those norms are renegotiated. Which is a very discourse theory way of framing the matter and thus probably illustrates my point quite nicely.
Thus in conclusion, since I’m not initiating a subversive dialogue on this occasion in an attempt to renegotiate the accepted norm, this is probably warning enough of just how I tend to conduct discourse. But if it’s any sort of consolation, at least I don’t operate in rhetoric mode most of the time since I tend to save that for public speaking.
In an average conversation where participants are sharing ideas and information there’s usually no need for any party to qualify their information or opinion with a source. If a friend double-checks with me that Bulgaria is part of the EU these days there’s no need for them to qualify why they think that or for me to cite the actual treaty, likewise because it’s my business to know; if I say that Moldova isn’t part of the EU they’re not likely to ask me for a reference, though I could cite as the most recent source an interview with the Moldovan president on Russia Today a little while ago where he discussed Moldovan accession and the question of Transnistria. But being a casual discussion there wasn’t the need for citations. In everyday dialogue the average person will be discussing matters casually outside of the academic context. When my father discusses the English translation of a specific word in Burmese usage, that he doesn’t feel is thoroughly explained in the translation I’m not going to ask him for the etymological background of said expression. I take it as a given that his knowledge of Burmese usage of Pali in a theological context is far greater than mine because it is and should he have something that he wants to query he can consult directly with varying international sources, secular and religious, covering a range of native and non-native Burmese speakers. Most importantly then in both these examples; they’re not cases of academic discourse.
I complained about half a year ago to a friend that I seemingly couldn’t have regular conversations anymore and instead just seemed to discourse theory at any and everyone. And that honestly has been the case because having a serious academic discussion isn’t the same as having a day to day conversation. Academic discussion being a matter of arguing points and backing up those arguments with citation and viable conjecture. In an academic context it’s not enough for me to suggest that the policy of the EU is enacted by and created by member states; I need to qualify that statement with a citation, be that in the form of a page in a study or a quotation.
"Europeanization is a two-way process: European integration shapes domestic policies, politics and polities, but Member States also project themselves by seeking to shape the trajectory of European integration in ways that suit national interests."
- Bomberg, E. & Peterson, J. cited in Akçapar, B., 2007. Turkey’s New European Era. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. p. 62
Without a citation such a statement is academically tenuous at best unless the rest of my write-up already covers similar citations and I’m merely summarising a section or if my aim is to give evidence of this phenomenon and this is the conclusion I have reached at the end. Of course if I’m talking to my lieutenant and arguing for the UK to take a greater part in the EU I can argue this point without citing my sources. Thus one style of discourse doesn’t require that participants qualify their assertions while the other does and should those qualifications not meet an acceptable, pre-determined standard ensures that said argument is suitably negated.
Which shows a clear distinction. Thus as flippantly as I was intending the comment; it is entirely likely that academic debate has changed the way I debate in a general context. Being used to citing my sources and backing up my arguments means that I’ll do it outside of an academic context too and in a more casual environment that probably does appear relatively confrontational. While I may curb that instinct somewhat in a general context, if I am asked for citations or to qualify my position the effect is akin to flipping a switch and activating an academic discourse mode; something which simply isn’t expected in casual discussion. And since this manner of discourse isn’t expected it transgresses the accepted norms of casual conversation and therefore challenges them by introducing a subversive and thus quite likely antagonistic thread into the general narrative, which operates in exactly the same way as minority discourse challenges established ‘common knowledge’ in a state system. The challenge then doesn’t come necessarily in the form the outsider dialogue being aggressive, though academic vs. general discourse would likely qualify as an aggressive debating style vs. a less confrontational one except in cases where the arguments being made through general discourse are emotive in nature, but rather due to its subversive nature. In challenging the established norm through difference it is always likely to be the case that there is some conflict as those norms are renegotiated. Which is a very discourse theory way of framing the matter and thus probably illustrates my point quite nicely.
Thus in conclusion, since I’m not initiating a subversive dialogue on this occasion in an attempt to renegotiate the accepted norm, this is probably warning enough of just how I tend to conduct discourse. But if it’s any sort of consolation, at least I don’t operate in rhetoric mode most of the time since I tend to save that for public speaking.
