Dilemma-argumentation i radioprogrammet Mads og monopolet

Ib Ulbæk

Sammendrag


Sammendrag

Denne artikel analyserer argumentationsdynamik, som den udspiller sig i rammerne af et populært dansk radioprogram, Mads og Monopolet. Programmet modtager spørgsmål fra lytterne, spørgsmål, der har form som dilemmaer, som det tre mand store hold af kendisser skal rådgive ud fra. Dilemma-formen er et godt format til at synliggøre de ræsonnementer og argumenter, holddeltagerne verbaliserer. Programmets koncept, at give råd til den spørgende, gør at der er en drift hos deltagerne mod konsensus og samarbejde, som gør deltagerne lyttende og giver mulighed for at skifte mening undervejs. Dette står i skarp kontrast til politisk argumentation, hvor politikere ikke skifter holdning, men propaganderer for partiernes ideer. Denne dynamiske proces undersøges i detaljer.  Da en udsendelse består af 8-10 dilemmaer, er det muligt at se på de enkelte deltageres evne til at få andre til at skifte standpunkt. Jeg benytter begrebet meningsattraktor til at undersøge dette, og finder at det er muligt operationalisere begrebet og vise forskellen i holddeltagernes evne til at overbevise. Endvidere undersøges det, hvordan deltagerne bruger hinandens information og holdninger til at fiksere egne holdninger. De andre er en ressource, der kan bruges positivt til at frembringe det fælles produkt, som det endelige råd er.

 

Abstract

This article analyzes the argumentation dynamics as it played out in the framework of a popular Danish radio program, Mads and the Monopoly. The program receives questions from listeners. The questions have the shape of dilemmas that the three-man team of celebrities gives advise from. The dilemma form is a good format to highlight the dynamics of the reasoning and arguments, the team members verbalize. The program's concept, to give advice to the listeners, gives a drive among the participants
toward consensus and cooperation, making participants listening and allows you to change your mind along the way. This is in sharp contrast to the political argument, where politicians do not change position but propagandizing parties' ideas. This dynamic process is studied in detail. When a program consists of 8-10 dilemmas, it is possible to look at each participant's ability to get others to change their stance. I use the term meaning-attractor to investigate this and find that it is possible to operationalize the concept and show the difference in team participants to convince. Furthermore it is explored how participants use each other's information and attitudes to fixate their own position. The other is a resource that can be used positively to create a common product, as the final piece of advice is. A comparison of the argumentation in debate, critical discussion and dilemma-argumentation shows important differences and similarities. Finally, it is shown that the dynamics of the dilemma-argumentation
is best analyzed in a simpler model than Toulmin’s. The warrant is an idle wheel.


Fulltekst:

PDF HTML


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/sakprosa.2884