The Political Value of Disputable Knowledge. Theorising the Rhetorical Model in Parliamentary-Style Practices

Abstract

In this article, the value of knowledge in politics is re-examined from the perspective of the rhetorical tradition. This alternative model contends that, unlike the assumptions made by such influential strands of scholarship as epistemic governance and knowledge brokerage, the disputability of knowledge derives from both the political actor(s) and their audience(s). Following the precepts of this model, the aim is to re-visit political knowledge, while acknowledging the procedures and practices of public debate from opposing points of view. Our research approach is to discuss the ideas of the model’s two major proponents in political theory, Max Weber and Quentin Skinner, who both consider knowledge in politics in terms of interventions in debate. The main finding is that both authors regard ‘knowledge’ either as new arguments contributing to an existing debate or as rhetorical moves to pursue new directions for debate. We examine this debate model of knowledge in relation to the practices of academic and parliamentary debates, the role of experts and officials in the parliamentary control practices, the rhetorical use of scientific knowledge by parliamentarians in the German Bundestag, and the role of parliamentarians as lay-scholars in the European Parliament. Finally, the debate model is applied to a case in which government officials claim to monopolise the interpretation of the existing situation, thereby restricting the extent of legitimate political discussion, resulting in the conclusion that the value of parliamentary debate is to defend the position of politicians, who should not accept any such reduction of their political responsibility.