Daniel Mejía Saldarriaga

This article synthesizes the results of several interviews with argumentation scholars from across the American continents to address three questions regarding the connections in argumentation studies between North and South/Central America: “What motivated the study of argumentation in the Americas?” “What commonalities, if any, exist in argumentation studies across the Americas?” and “What should the future of argumentation studies in the Americas look like?” Using these interviews in combination with existing textual sources, the article also provides motivated suggestions for directions for the future of the community in the field.

El propósito de este artículo es explicar la acción colectiva que realizan las organizaciones de movimientos sociales mediante procesos de enmarcado entendidos como el resultado de un diálogo deliberativo. Para lograrlo, el texto se divide en cuatro apartados: en el primero se introduce la teoría del enmarcado de los estudios sobre movimientos sociales. En el segundo se pasa revista sobre distintas explicaciones a propósito de la creación de un marco de acción colectiva; en el tercero se apela a la caracterización de diálogo deliberativo de Walton y Krabbe y al esquema de razonamiento práctico de Fairclough y Fairclough, para trazar una relación entre el enmarcado de acción colectiva y aquel diálogo. En el último, se concluye que la acción colectiva de los activistas que se involucran en los procesos de enmarcado puede comprenderse como una acción colectiva deliberada.

One of the positive ways in which argumentation can improve political thinking is through providing definitions. We can establish definitions through argumentation, filtering out ideas that are irrelevant or unacceptable, and collecting features that offer a comprehensive understanding of a crucial concept. In this paper, we use argumentation to illuminate the concept of extremism. We proceed in this way: first, we discuss the relationship between argumentation and definitions. Second, we look at the current state of affairs by exploring contemporary definitions of “extremism” and by identifying several problems in the definition literature. Third, we assume the burden of proof in providing a definition that avoids problems we have identified. Fourth, we discuss other closely-associated concepts and their definitions—terrorism, radicalism, and fundamentalism, explaining how these concepts are distinct from our definition of extremism.