Desacuerdos estratégicos y dinámicas de conflicto antagónicas

David  Bordonaba-Plou

doi:10.3989/isegoria.2022.66.25

Autores/as

David Bordonaba-Plou Universidad de Valparaíso https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0788-9733

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2022.66.25

Palabras clave:

Desacuerdos estratégicos, debates parlamentarios, dinámicas de conflicto antagónicas, corpus lingüísticos, ventajas estratégicas

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es doble. Primero, analizar los desacuerdos estratégicos, es decir, aquellas situaciones en las que una de las partes usa una expresión que le permite reestructurar el debate y, de este modo, obtener alguna ventaja estratégica para hacer avanzar su agenda política. El trabajo examina este tipo de desacuerdos en un contexto específico: los debates parlamentarios del Congreso de los Diputados de España pertenecientes a la VIII Legislatura (2004-2008). Segundo, mostrar que los desacuerdos estratégicos constituyen dinámicas de conflicto antagónicas, es decir, situaciones en las que se niega a una o a ambas partes un tratamiento moralmente aceptable de sus puntos de vista. De este modo, los desacuerdos estratégicos impiden que se puedan desarrollar las dinámicas necesarias para gestionar el conflicto de manera cooperativa.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Adams, D. M. (2005). Knowing when Disagreements are Deep. Informal Logic, 25(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1045

Almagro, M. y Villanueva, N. (2021). Polarización y tecnologías de la información: radicales vs. extremistas. Dilemata. Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas, 34, 51-69.

Augoustinos, M. y Every, D. (2007). Contemporary racist discourse: Taboos against racism and racist accusations. En: V. Weatherall, B. M. Watson y C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology (pp. 233-254). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230206168_10

Bordonaba-Plou, D. (2019). Polarización como impermeabilidad: Cuando las razones ajenas no importan. Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales, 66, 295-309. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2019000300295

Ceva, E. (2016). Interactive Justice. A Proceduralist Approach to Value Conflict in Politics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560052

Cheng, J. E. (2015). Islamophobia, Muslimophobia or racism? Parliamentary discourses on Islam and Muslims in debates on the minaret ban in Switzerland. Discourse & Society, 26(5), 562-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515581157

Davis, J. K. (2015). Faultless Disagreement, Cognitive Command, and Epistemic Peers. Synthese, 192, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0543-x

De Cruz, H. y De Smedt, J. (2013). The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice. The case of Homo Floresiensis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, part A 44(2), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.02.002

Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. y Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. The American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500

Fogelin, R. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25(1), 3-11. [Original, 1985, Informal Logic, 7(1), 3-11]. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1040

Gerlsbeck, F. (2016). What is Democratic Reliability? Epistemic Theories of Democracy and the Problem of Reasonable Disagreement. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(2): 218-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2015.1129489

Jurafsky, D. y Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing. An Introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall.

Kappel, K. (2012). The Problem of Deep Disagreement. Discipline Filosofiche, 22(2), 7-25.

Kappel, K. (2017). Fact-dependent policy disagreements and political legitimacy. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9770-1

Kölbel, M. (2004). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00081.x

Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008

Levitsky, S. y Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.

Lynch, M. P. (2010). Epistemic circularity and epistemic disagreement. En: A. Haddock, A. Millar y D. Pritchard (Eds.), Social epistemology (pp. 262-277). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.003.0013 PMid:22396865 PMCid:PMC3295033

MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment-sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001

McMahon, C. (2009). Reasonable Disagreement. A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596742

Osorio, J. y Villanueva, N. (2019). Expressivism and crossed disagreements. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 86, 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246119000092

Pančur, A. y Šorn, M. (2016). Smart big data: Use of Slovenian parliamentary papers in digital history. Contributions to Contemporary History, 56(3), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.51663/pnz.56.3.09

Plunkett D. y Sundell T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosopher's Imprint, 13(23), 1-37.

Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S. y Gröndlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136

Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9572-6

Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711

Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Knowledge in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 2, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.06dij

Van Dijk, T. A. (2010). Political identities in parliamentary debates. En: C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 29-56). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.03dij

Yeager, G. M. (1979). The Club de la Unión and kinship: Social aspects of political obstructionism in the Chilean Senate, 1920-1924. The Americas, 35(4), 539-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/981022