Many of the accounts of argumentation and deliberation available in the literature paint an overly idealized picture of these processes, assuming agents with no cognitive limitations and largely cooperative settings where all participants have a similar social standing and shared goals. This book breaks away from these idealized accounts; it investigates how reason and power interact in argumentative processes by focusing on the effects upon these processes of power differentials, conflicts of interests, and the cognitive limitations of human agents. It seeks to investigate the limits of discursive rationality, thus moderating unrestricted optimism on the power of reason, while also recognizing the important role that rational arguments play in various domains (science, politics, education). Its extensive use of real-life examples ensures that the analysis remain grounded in concrete situations, and facilitates the reader's understanding of the main theoretical framework developed throughout the book.

‘This book is exemplary of what non-ideal theory of enacted rationality should be. Dutilh Novaes expertly highlights how power, limited resources, and social costs and risks influence processes of argumentation.  What emerges is a compelling picture of how to explain and evaluate real-life arguments.'

Scott Aikin - Vanderbilt University