Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Learn about Basics of Communication

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swan, D.
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 297-320 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X03252279

Contesting Animal Rights on the Internet

Discourse Analysis of the Social Construction of Argument

Davina Swan

University College Cork, Ireland

John C. McCarthy

University College Cork, Ireland

This article examines contributions to argument on Internet sites concerned with animal rights. As this is part of a project examining how "rights" and "cases" are constructed and contested through argument, the texts considered are selected from sites that take an explicit stance for or against animal rights. Our reading of these texts highlights the strategies used by pro- and anti-animal-rights contributors. The pro-animal-rights side used two main argumentative strategies. The first constructed animal use as a moral problem by ascribing rights to animals in discourses of suffering, oppression, and depravity. The second constructed animal rights as mutually reinforcing of human welfare by presenting animal use as needless for, and dangerous to, human health. The anti-animal-rights side reconstructed animal use as necessary for reasons including human health, thereby situating animal interests and human welfare as incompatible, and make animal rights rather than animal use the moral problem. Implications are discussed.

Key Words: animal rights • argument • argumentative strategy • dialogue • social construction • action-oriented • discourse


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?