On On Public Deliberation: Between Argumentation and Negotiation

Abstract

The main objective of this article is to analyze the link between the negotiating and the argumentative practices, in order to observe to what extent the argumentative deliberation affects the stage of negotiating public disputes. From the description of the state of the art on the problem, we try to add arguments to point to a discussion of the issue in a more connected way. At first it is established the superiority of normative logic over the strategic as a guide to human behavior. But as the goal of this paper is to highlight the need for linkage between the strategies of negotiation and the argumentation of principles, in order to analyze it dynamically, their mutual influence is seen in a dialectic way: from the strategic use of appealing to the rules to the limitation imposed by the harsh standards-negotiation of interest claim. “Border” concepts are then defined between these two logics, taking into account the scenarios (public or private) where they can be demonstrated. Finally, in the conclusions, we highlight the necessary overlap of action logics, because it’s unthinkable a discussion about rules without the intervention of interests as the public proposal of a dispute under the strict logic of power relationship.