Diabolical devil’s advocates and the weaponization of illocutionary force

Datos Bibliográficos

ID10689596
AutoresGiulia Terzian (0000-0002-1084-3023, ArgLab-IFILNOVA, Nova Universidade de Lisboa , Portugal, autor de correspondencia), María Inés Corbalán (0000-0001-8036-715X, ArgLab-IFILNOVA, Nova Universidade de Lisboa , Portugal)
Año2024
Fecha de publicación2024-05-02
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Philosophical Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0031-8094 • E-ISSN: 1467-9213
EditorialOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/pq/pqae033
OpenAlexW4396592234
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas51

A standing presumption in the literature is that devil’s advocacy is an inherently beneficial argumentative move; and that those who take on this role in conversation are paradigms of argumentative virtue. Outside academic circles, however, devil’s advocacy has acquired something of a notorious reputation: real-world conversations are rife with self-proclaimed devil’s advocates who are anything but virtuous. Motivated by this observation, in this paper we offer the first in-depth exploration of non-ideal devil’s advocacy. We draw on recent analyses of two better known discursive practices—mansplaining and trolling—to illuminate some of the signature traits of vicious devil’s advocacy. Building on this comparative examination, we show that all three practices trade on a manipulation of illocutionary force; and we evaluate their respective options for securing plausible deniability

Political science · Use of force · Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices · Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes · Law · Race, History, and American Society