Abstract

The paradoxical nature of globalization in between diversity and atomization seems to have a great impact on the way people communicate within a culture and across cultures, as well. Whether we speak about politics, science, religion or economy, individuals are encouraged to express their views showing tolerance and flexibility towards the other so as to minimize areas of disagreement. Nevertheless, the antagonist tendency is to promote individualism through excessive competitiveness and gradual loss of empathy towards the other which translates into narrow-mindedness, biases and unwillingness to revise opinions in interpersonal communication. Using insights from the extended version of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2006) and from other various scholars interested in the role of emotions in argumentation (Plantin 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, Gilbert 1994, 1996, 1997, 2005, Walton 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000, Kwak 2007, Aberdein 2010 and Ciurria 2012) I intend to investigate the way these opposing tendencies manifest themselves in argumentative practice. In line with these scholars, I hold that the resolution of a difference of opinion does not solely depend on the arguers’ sound reasoning but also on how they interact with one another emotionally.