| Summary: | This paper focuses on the issue of the researcher’s attitude to his object (in particular, on the possibility of adopting a critical stance). This question concerns the whole realm of social sciences; here, it is tackled in the light of the author’s experience in argumentation studies. She distinguishes three perspectives (descriptive positioning, normative positioning, militant positioning) and compares two analyses she produced of some political discourse. These analyses obey different logics (an epistemic and a political one), and display contrasting discursive and enunciative characteristics. While admitting that caring for critical activism is legitimate, the author concludes to the necessity of acknowledging and maintaining the split between what falls under science and what falls under politics in argumentation studies.
|
|---|
