Power and Persuasion: Is Debate Zero Sum

Abstract

If debate or deliberation involves persuading others then is debate zero-sum, where what some gain others lose? Is debate over the concept of ‘power’ itself a power-game? If agent A induces belief-change in agent B then A must have the power to induce that belief change. I argue however that such power is not necessarily coercive or due to domination. What really matters in debate where persuasion takes place are the grounds of belief change. If evidence and reason induces belief change rather than rhetorical force then domination has not necessarily taken place. I discuss this claim with regard to the nature of ‘truth constraints’ in empirical contexts and ‘agreement constraints’ within normative contexts. I argue that another important condition is the intentions of those engaged in debate for both our assessment of the nature of agential power and for the epistemic character of the conclusions reached through deliberative engagement. Conceptual analysis over the meaning of ‘power’ does not have to be a zero sum game, nor does it have to involve social or coercive power.

Keywords: power, belief-change, deliberation