Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations]( "Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations")
Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations103,99 €![Interpreting Conflict]( "Interpreting Conflict")
Interpreting Conflict110,99 €![Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations]( "Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations")
Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations103,99 €![A Discursive Perspective on Wikipedia]( "A Discursive Perspective on Wikipedia")
A Discursive Perspective on Wikipedia33,99 €![Interpreting Conflict]( "Interpreting Conflict")
Interpreting Conflict110,99 €![Rhetoricians on Argumentation]( "Rhetoricians on Argumentation")
Rhetoricians on Argumentation81,99 €![Place-Name Politics in Multilingual Areas]( "Place-Name Politics in Multilingual Areas")
Place-Name Politics in Multilingual Areas117,99 €
This book revisits the definition of polemical discourse and deals with its functions in the democratic sphere. It first examines theoretical questions concerning the management of disagreement in democracy and the nature of polemical discourse. Next, it analyses case studies involving such issues as the place of women in the public space, illustrated by the case of the burqa in France and public controversy in the media on the exclusion of women from the public space. The book then explores reason, passion and violence in polemical discourse by means of cases involving confrontations between secular and ultra-orthodox circles, controversies about the Mexican Wall and fierce discussions about stock-options, and bonuses in times of financial crisis.
Although polemical exchanges in the public sphere exacerbate dissent instead of resolving conflicts, they are quite frequent in the media and on the Net. How can we explain such a paradox? Most studies in argumentation avoid the question: they mainly focus on the verbal procedures leading to agreement. This focus stems from the centrality conferred upon consensus in our democratic societies, where decisions should be the result of a process of deliberation. What is then the social function of a confrontational management of dissent that does not primarily seek to achieve agreement? Is it just a sign of decadence, failure and powerlessness, or does it play a constructive role? This book answers these questions.
Although polemical exchanges in the public sphere exacerbate dissent instead of resolving conflicts, they are quite frequent in the media and on the Net. How can we explain such a paradox? Most studies in argumentation avoid the question: they mainly focus on the verbal procedures leading to agreement. This focus stems from the centrality conferred upon consensus in our democratic societies, where decisions should be the result of a process of deliberation. What is then the social function of a confrontational management of dissent that does not primarily seek to achieve agreement? Is it just a sign of decadence, failure and powerlessness, or does it play a constructive role? This book answers these questions.
"The merit of this new book by Ruth Amossy is to provide a faithful description of discursive practices that have been neglected for too long and thus to allow a better understanding of the meaning and function of verbal behaviours that deviate from rational and reasonable negotiation between interlocutors ... . This book, which is a major contribution to the theory of argumentation, is also a powerful stimulus for students, offering them an extremely rich range of examples and analyses." (Jean-Claude Guerrini, Argumentation, Vol. 36 (3), 2022)