Reps first—they precede policy—they don’t get to weigh the case—we’re a
prereq.
Neta Crawford 02,PhD MA MIT, BA Brown, Prof. of poli sci at boston univ. Argument and Change in World Politics, 2002 p.
19-21
Coherent argumentsare unlikelyto take place unlessand until actors,at least on some level, agree
on what they are arguing about. The at least temporary resolution ofmeta-arguments- regardingthe nature of the good (the
content of prescriptive norms);what is out there, the way we know the world,how we decide between competing beliefs (ontology and epistemology); andthe nature of the situation at hand( the proper frame
representation)-must occur before specific arguments that could lead to decision
or
and action may take [Link]-arguments over epistemology and ontology, relatively rare, occur in instances where
there is a fundamental clash between belief systems and not simply a debate within a belief system. Such arguments over
the nature of the worldand how we come to know it areparticularly rare in politicsthough they are more
frequent in religion and science. Meta-arguments over the “good” are contests over what it is good and right to do, and even how we know the good and the right. They are about the nature of the good, specifically,
defining the qualities of “good” so that we know good when we see it and do it. Ethical arguments are about how to do good in a particular situation. More commonare meta-arguments over representationsor
frames- about how we out to understand a particular [Link] actors agree on how they see a situation. More often there are different possible interpretations. Thomas Homer-Dixon and Roger karapin
suggest, “Argument and debate occur when people try to gain acceptance for their interpretation of the world”.For example, “is the war defensive or aggressive?”. Defining and controlling representations and
images, or the frame, affects whether one thinks there is an issue at stake and whether a particular argument appliesto the case. An actor fighting a defensive war is within international law; an aggressor
actorswho are struggling to
may legitimately be subject to sanctions. Framing and reframing involve mimesis or putting forward representations of what is going on. In mimetic meta-arguments,
accomplishtheirends by drawingvividpictures of the
characterize or frame the situation
“reality” throughexaggeration, analogy, or differentiation. Representationsof a situationdo not re-produce
accurately so much as they creatively re-presentsituations in a way that makes sense. “mimesis is a metaphoric or ‘iconic
argumentation of the real.’ Imitating not the effectivity of events but their logical structure and meaning.” Certain features are emphasized and others de-emphasized or completely ignoredas their situation
Representationthus becomes a “constraint on reasoning in that it limits
isrecharacterized or reframed.
understanding to a specific organization of conceptual knowledge .” The dominant representation delimits
which arguments will be considered legitimate, framing how actors see possibities. As Roxanne Doty argues, “the possibility of practices presupposes the ability of an agent to imagine certain courses of action.
Certain background meanings, kinds of social actors and relationships, must already be in place.” If, as Donald Sylvan and Stuart Thorson argue, “politics involves the selective privileging of representations,
it may not matter whether one representation or another is trueor [Link] whether
“
frames articulate accurate or inaccurate perceptions misses the rhetorical import
of representation- how frames affect what is seen or not seen, and subsequent choices. Meta-arguments over representation are thus crucial elements of political argument because an
actor’s arguments about what to do will be more persuasive if their characterization or framing of the situation holds sway. But, as Rodger Payne suggests, “No frame is an omnipotent persuasive tool that can be
decisively wielded by norm entrepreneurs without serious political wrangling.” Hence framing is a meta-argument.