Roque, G. (2009). What Is Visual in Visual Argumentation? In: J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1-9), Windsor, ON: OSSA. Copyright © 2009, the author. What Is Visual in Visual Argumentation? GEORGES ROQUE Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Centre de Recherches sur les arts et le langage, EHESS 96 Bd. Raspail 75006 Paris France roque@ehess.fr ABSTRACT: Is visual argumentation possible? My personal opinion is that it is, despite of the burden of verbal argumentation and the numerous critiques made against visual arguments. Insofar as most of these critiques are related to the difference between words and images, I will focus my paper on this issue, which is a theoretical one, as it seems to me that taking these critiques seriously is a first step before analyzing concretely how visual arguments work. KEYWORDS: linguistic imperialism, verbal and visual, visual argument, visual argumentation, visual semiotics, words and images. This anxiety, this need to defend “our speech” against “the visual” is, I want to suggest, a sure sign that a pictorial turn is taking place. W.J.T. Mitchell, Picture Theory. 1. INTRODUCTION Is visual argumentation possible? 1 My personal opinion is that it is, despite of the burden of verbal argumentation and the numerous critiques made against visual arguments, amongst which that images are emotional and not rational and therefore would play a role that is more persuasive than convincing. Insofar as most of these critiques are related to the difference between words and images, I will focus my paper on this issue, which is a theoretical one, as it seems to me that taking these critiques seriously is a first step before analyzing concretely how visual arguments work. As a starting point, I will take two of the best papers ever written about visual argumentation: “Why ‘Visual arguments’ aren’t Arguments” (Johnson 2003); and “Can Pictures be arguments?” (Fleming 1996). Indeed, if arguments are, arguably, prompted by issues that are controversial, it is then much more interesting and more stimulating to analyze the arguments of those who are against the idea you would like to promote. Most of their objections to visual arguments rest on the differences between the verbal and the visual: “Why do we need a theory of visual argument?,” asks Johnson (2003, p. 1). Indeed, if we already have a theory of verbal argumentation (or rather many of them), 1 For the growing literature on the topic, see Birdsell and Groarke 1996; Birdsell and Groarke 2007; Groarke 2007; for some references in French, see Roque 2004.