The Social Consequences of Dissociation: Lessons from the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

In the decades since Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) published The New Rhetoric, argumentation scholars have been working to fully understand its philosophical and practical implications. Scholars have shown particular interest in the dissociation of concepts, an argumentative move through which a single, unitary concept is split into two concepts in order to "remove an incompatibility arising out of the confrontation of one proposition with others ..." (p. 413). According to Frank (2007) and others, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca saw dissociation as one of the most important contributions of the New Rhetoric Project (NRP) (p. 329). There has been a concerted effort to understand dissociation as a rhetorical device that leads a rich life in public deliberation-that is, as something other than solely a mode of truth (cf. Gross, 2000; Johnstone, 1978). One of the problems revealed by this effort has been that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca do not devote sufficient attention to the in-situ functions of dissociation in social, cultural and political contexts (Ritivoi, 2008, p. 188). Several accounts of dissociation-in-action (Gross & Dearin, 2003; Ritivoi, 2008; Femheimer, 2009) have begun to address this oversight by exploring the social consequences of dissociation in public and political controversies. This project seeks to continue this effort by highlighting problematic uses of dissociation in the same-sex marriage (SSM) controversy in the United States. Exploring the social consequences of dissociation is an important continuation of the New Rhetoric Project given that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca envisioned argumentation and moral action as deeply interconnected (Frank, 2004, p. 267). Indeed, one of the most remarkable aspects of the NRP has been its consistent, if not always successful, attempt to create a theory of argumentation that is applicable to real-world situations and audiences (i.e., the particular), while still accountable in some way to trans-contextual standards of morality and rationality (i.e., the universal) (Crosswhite, 1989). Rhetoricians and others concerned with the quality of public deliberation have strong reasons to consider the social consequences of any form of argumentation. However, dissociation is particularly important in this regard because it names an argumentative solution to an age-old difficulty: public debates attempting to resolve shared problems often become mired in disagreements about definitions. As Schiappa (1985, p. 72) argues, dissociation is a common solution when individuals or publics are struggling with some form of the question, "What is X? "In the case of the SSM debate, arguers sometimes ask, 'What is marriage? " and then answer their own question by dissociating heterosexual marriages and same-sex unions (e.g. Girgis, Anderson, & George, 2012). The SSM example may seem relatively new, but definitional questions like "What is marriage?" have been with us since at least the time of Plato and they have important consequences for public policy (Schiappa, 2003, p. 36). Indeed, definitional problems--and the dissociations that often result--have social consequences because they do epistemic work, authorizing worldviews and legitimizing beliefs and behaviors (Ritivoi, 2008, p. 189). This essay explores problematic uses of dissociation in the same-sex marriage controversy and their social consequences through an analysis of three talking points guides authored and distributed on the Internet by three anti-same-sex marriage advocacy organizations in the United States. My argument with regard to dissociation is twofold: 1. I suggest that dissociation's ability to remove incompatibilities has helped opponents of same-sex marriage sidestep a perceived incompatibility between their opposition to SSM and their stated commitment to values like equality and tolerance. Removing this incompatibility has had social consequences insofar as it offers an out, a way of excluding LGBTQ people without having to say that that is what is happening. …