Perché argomentiamo? Consenso e dissenso tra retorica e democrazia / Consensus and Dissensus between Rhetoric and Democracy
Abstract
Is agreement the purpose of argumentation? This article compares two different approaches to argumentation, analysing its political effects. The comparison is undertaken in the first section of the paper considering two main groups of argumentation theories; one group in which argumentation aims to resolve a disagreement or a difference of opinion in order to reach an agreement (e.g. VAN EEMEREN e GROOTENDORST 2004; VAN EEMEREN et. al. 1993) and one group which is concerned with deep disagreements. The second section questions some political implications of the agreement-oriented perspective, which is often connected with a normative discussion model and with a negative evaluation of pathos and ethos. The last part of the paper outlines the socio-political advantages of a rhetorical approach to agreement and disagreement, which includes logos as well as pathos and ethos. In particular, the so-called rhetoric of dissensus, which takes into account the personal dimension of argumentation, shows the constructive dimension of conflict and the democratic value of polemic discourses and ad hominem arguments.
References
AMOSSY, Ruth (2010), «L’argomento “ad hominem”: riflessioni sulle funzioni della violen-za verbale», in Altre Modernità, n. 3, pp. 56-70, disponibile su http://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/ online/article/view/575.
AMOSSY, Ruth (2011), «La coexistence dans le dissensus. La polémique dans les forums de discussion», in Semen, n. 31 | 2011, pp. 25-42, disponibile su http://semen.revues.org/9051.
AMOSSY, Ruth (2014), Apologie de la polémique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
ANGENOT, Marc (2008), Le dialogue de sourd. Traité de rhétorique antilogique, Mille et une Nuits, Paris.
BRINTON, Alan (1985), «A rhetorical view of ad hominem», in Australian Journal of Philosophy, n. 63, pp. 50-63.
BRINTON, Alan (1986), «Ethotic argument», in History of Philosophy Quarterly, n. 3, pp. 255-258.
CANTÙ, Paola e TESTA, Italo (2006), Teorie dell’argomentazione. Un’introduzione alle logiche del dialogo, Mondadori, Milano.
COPI, Irving Marmer (1961), Introduction to Logic, The Macmillan Company, New York (Introduzione alla Logica, Il Mulino, Bologna 1964).
DANBLON, Emmanuelle (2015), «Fréquenter la concorde pour pratiquer le désaccord», plenary speech al convegno “Building Consensus. Rhetoric between Democracy and Conflict”, 17 aprile 2015.
DASCAL, Marcelo (2001), «How rational can a polemic across the analytic - continental ‘divide’ be?», in International Journal of Philosophical Studies, n. 9 vol. 3, pp. 313-339.
EEMEREN, Frans H. van e GARSSEN, Bart (2008), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
EEMEREN, Frans H. van e GROOTENDORST, Rob (2004), A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (trad. it. Una teoria sistematica dell’argomentazione. L’approccio pragma-dialettico, Mimesis, Milano 2008).
EEMEREN, Frans H. van, GROOTENDORST, Rob, JACKSON, Sally e JACOBS, Scott (1993), Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/London.
FOGELIN, Robert J. (1985), «The Logic of Deep Disagreement», in Informal Logic, n. 25: 1, pp. 3-11, 2005 [1985].
KOCK, Christian E. J. (2009), «Constructive Controversy: Rhetoric as Dissensus-oriented Discourse», in Cogency, 1(1), 89-112.
MEYER, Michel (2004), La rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
PERELMAN, Chaïm e OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, Lucie (1958), Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (trad. it. Trattato dell’argomentazione. La nuova retorica, Einaudi, Torino 2001).
PLANTIN, Christian (in pubblicazione), Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction notionnelle aux études d'argumentation, disponibile su http://icar.univ-lyon2.fr/Membres/cplantin/index.html.
RAWLS, John (1993), Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York.
SERRA, Mauro (2014), «Retorica, potere, violenza: un modello agonistico per la deliberazione», in RIFL (Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio), numero speciale Linguaggio e istituzioni. Discorsi, monete, riti, pp. 82-95.
ZAGARELLA, Roberta Martina (2012), «Accordo e persona nell’argomentazione: il caso dell’ad hominem», in RIFL (Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio), vol. 6, n. 3, pp. 133-147.
ZAGARELLA, Roberta Martina (2015), La dimensione personale dell’argomentazione, Unipress, Padova.
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
