ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY 50 (Winter 2014): 157-167 THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISSOCIATION: LESSONS FROM THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE Doug Cloud This essay explores two problematic functions o f dissociation in publicly distributed, anti-same-sex marriage talking points guides. I argue that the organizations responsible for these guides use dissociation to sidestep self-identified conflicts between their values and actions and to disguise arguments based on social animus as claims about abstract concepts such as marriage. To further the study o f dissociation in public discourse, I advocate a broader view: arguments that merely attempt to create the kind o ffundamental, conceptual divisions for which dissociation is know n- but do not succeed- can still have social consequences and warrant close study. Key Words: Perelman, dissociation, rhetoric, same-sex marriage, social consequences In the decades since Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) published The New Rhetoric , argumentation scholars have been working to fully understand its philosophical and practical implications. Scholars have shown particular interest in the dissociation of concepts, an argumentative move through which a single, unitary concept is split into two concepts in order to “remove an incompatibility arising out of the confrontation of one proposition with others . . (p. 413). According to Frank (2007) and others, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca saw dissociation as one of the most important contributions of the New Rhetoric Project (NRP) (p. 329). There has been a concerted effort to understand dissociation as a rhetorical device that leads a rich life in public deliberation—that is, as something other than solely a mode of truth (cf. Gross, 2000;Johnstone, 1978). One of the problems revealed by this effort has been that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca do not devote sufficient attention to the in-situ functions of dissociation in social, cultural and political contexts (Ritivoi, 2008, p. 188). Several accounts of dissociation-in-action (Gross & Dearin, 2003; Ritivoi, 2008; Femheimer, 2009) have begun to address this oversight by exploring the social consequences of disso- ciation in public and political controversies. This project seeks to continue this effort by highlighting problematic uses of dissociation in the same-sex marriage (SSM) controversy in the United States. Exploring the social consequences of dissociation is an important continuation of the New Rhetoric Project given that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca envisioned argumentation and moral action as deeply interconnected (Frank, 2004, p. 267). Indeed, one of the most remarkable aspects of the NRP has been its consistent, if not always successful, attempt to create a theory of argumentation that is applicable to real-world situations and audiences (i.e., the particular), while still accountable in some way to trans-contextual standards of morality and rationality (i.e., the universal) (Crosswhite, 1989). Rhetoricians and others concerned with the quality of public deliberation have strong reasons to consider the social consequences of any form of argumentation. However, dissociation is particularly important in this regard because it names an argumentative Doug Cloud is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition in the Department ofEnglish at Colorado State University. A version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Rhetoric Society of America Conference. The author would like to thank Linda Flower, Andreea Ritivoi, Mathew Zebrowski, Daniel Dickson-LaPrade, Carolyn Commer, Kristin Shimmin, Tim Dawson, Sarah Sloane, and the reviewers for theirfeedback on the project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Doug Cloud, Department of English, Colorado State University, 1773 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. E-mail: Doug. Cloud@colostate.edu.