(Ir)rationality as a strategy of manipulation. The political interview in Great Britain

Abstract

Taking advantage of the terminology of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation propounded by Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (1984, 1992, 2004), argumentation is considered faulty if a person advancing arguments attaches greater importance to the need to convince a dialogue (which is often identical to a strategy of manipulation) the participants of a dialogue than to the accepted norms of the argumentative exchange. The result of this is the triumph of the rhetorical goal over the dialectical. Referring also to strategic thinking, in which a strategy is viewed as a plan of action (Dixit and Nalebuff 1991/1993, 2010), appealing to the art of rational thinking (vide: behaviour) in mutual relations (Dixit and Skeath 1999), and which proposes a merge of science (“what”, specialist and scientific expertise, experience) and art (“how”, a skill or an ability learned inductively) to attain the desired effect, that is a win, participants of a dialogue will use every available means to realise the above goal, even at the expense of the rationality of their arguments. This is precisely the task of players/participants to verify which strategies to select to gain payoff, that is a win in the election. Thus, this paper will focus on the use of the strategy of (ir)rationality as a strategy of manipulation in the political TV interviews in Great Britain. The analysis of the genre of the political interview will enable us to determine whether and to what extent this type of argumentation may be rendered rational.