Homo Politicusand Argument (Nearly) All the Way Down: Persuasion in Politics

Abstract

Much theorizing about world politics and many policy recommendations are predicated on a rather thin view ofhomo politicus,often assuming that humans are rational and self-interested strategic actors and that force is theultima ratioof politics. This thin notion should be replaced by a richer understanding ofhomo politicusthat includes the characteristic activities of political actors: we fight, we feel, we talk, and we build institutions. This understanding helps illuminate the scope and limits of strategic action, argument and persuasion in world politics in both empirical and normative senses. I describe the spectrum of political action that situates the role of argument and persuasion within the extremes of brute force on one side and mutual communication on the other. I also discuss barriers to argument and communication. Noting the role of argument in this spectrum of international and domestic political practice suggests that it is argument (nearly) all the way down and that the scope of argument can be and in some cases has increased over thelongue durée.Coercion, by itself, has a limited role in world politics. The claim that there are distinctive logics of argumentation, strategic action, or appropriateness misses the point. Argument is the glue of politics—its characteristic practice. Understanding politics as argumentation has radical empirical and normative implications for the study and practice of politics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.