地方审议的包容悖论:密歇根州LGBTQ+非歧视争议的荷兰案例

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2022-08-05 DOI:10.1080/10511431.2022.2107663
Joshua H. Miller
{"title":"地方审议的包容悖论:密歇根州LGBTQ+非歧视争议的荷兰案例","authors":"Joshua H. Miller","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2107663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this essay, I analyze a protracted public controversy about whether Holland, Michigan should adopt an ordinance banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I argue that the controversy reveals what I am terming the inclusion paradox of local deliberation. Ordinance supporters’ efforts to foster ethos within the status quo’s political processes and identify with opponents worked to legitimize the very logics and assumptions that enable exclusion. I illustrate the inclusion paradox in how supporters build identification, what arguments they made, where they advanced their claims, and the fact that they did participate in the controversy. As such, the essay provides insights for rhetoric and argumentation scholars as well as advocates about how local rhetorics can enable or undermine inclusion and justice.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"1 1","pages":"129 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The inclusion paradox of local deliberation: the case of Holland, Michigan’s LGBTQ+ non-discrimination controversy\",\"authors\":\"Joshua H. Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10511431.2022.2107663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this essay, I analyze a protracted public controversy about whether Holland, Michigan should adopt an ordinance banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I argue that the controversy reveals what I am terming the inclusion paradox of local deliberation. Ordinance supporters’ efforts to foster ethos within the status quo’s political processes and identify with opponents worked to legitimize the very logics and assumptions that enable exclusion. I illustrate the inclusion paradox in how supporters build identification, what arguments they made, where they advanced their claims, and the fact that they did participate in the controversy. As such, the essay provides insights for rhetoric and argumentation scholars as well as advocates about how local rhetorics can enable or undermine inclusion and justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"129 - 147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2107663\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2107663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我分析了密歇根州荷兰市是否应该通过一项禁止基于性取向和性别认同的住房和就业歧视的法令,这是一场旷日持久的公众争议。我认为,这场争论揭示了我所说的地方审议的包容悖论。条例的支持者努力在现状的政治过程中培养风气,并认同反对者,这使使排斥成为可能的逻辑和假设合法化。我从支持者如何建立认同、他们提出了什么论点、他们在哪里提出自己的主张,以及他们确实参与了争议的事实等方面阐述了包容悖论。因此,这篇文章为修辞学和议论文学者以及倡导者提供了关于地方修辞学如何促进或破坏包容和正义的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The inclusion paradox of local deliberation: the case of Holland, Michigan’s LGBTQ+ non-discrimination controversy
ABSTRACT In this essay, I analyze a protracted public controversy about whether Holland, Michigan should adopt an ordinance banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I argue that the controversy reveals what I am terming the inclusion paradox of local deliberation. Ordinance supporters’ efforts to foster ethos within the status quo’s political processes and identify with opponents worked to legitimize the very logics and assumptions that enable exclusion. I illustrate the inclusion paradox in how supporters build identification, what arguments they made, where they advanced their claims, and the fact that they did participate in the controversy. As such, the essay provides insights for rhetoric and argumentation scholars as well as advocates about how local rhetorics can enable or undermine inclusion and justice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Can high school competitive debating facilitate political participation? The role of political knowledge and identification with a politically active group Nonverbal communication as argumentation: the case of political television debates The unnerved and unhoused: a rhetorical analysis of save Austin now’s campaign to disband unhoused individuals from Austin, Texas “Where were you shot?”: analyzing location rhetoric as strategic maneuvering in contemporary gun-control discourse Effective argumentation for action in health policy: a case study of the UK’s review on antimicrobial resistance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1