Discursive violence, argumentation and memory in the Brazilian political scenario: the (dis)virtuosity of public discourse

Abstract

In addition to the common insults, slander and defamation, common in the electoral period, we have accompanied the increase in cases of explicit violence by discourse that tend to foster real actions and reactions of physical violence by the population. It can be said that one of the reasons for this growth is the persuasive power of discourse and the lack of ethical commitment on the part of the subjects in general, but especially of the political agents, in adjusting their discourses by the ethical parameter of democracy. In this sense, this article intends to problematize the ethical limits of public discourse, shedding light on the importance of analyzing not only the discursive act itself, but also the agent of the act (PERALMAN; OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, 2005), in search of a more well-suited hermeneutic activity. To that end, I analyze the statement “vamos fuzilar a petralhada…” through the notion of discursive virtue proposed by Marie-Anne Paveau (2015) and, in the end, point to the need to understand the responsibility (BAKHTIN, 1993) of each agent as a condition for the ethical and democratic exercise of the public word in Brazil.