Verbal violence and argumentation in democracies

Abstract

Argumentation in public spaces of deliberation in open societies implies responsibility. The non-observance of the so-called “rules of the debate” would thus be an example of the irresponsible public use of word, hindering criticism. One questions if, regarding the vote of Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment in the Chamber of Deputies (analyzed by the transcript of the institution’s shorthand department), these basic rules of argumentation would have been neglected, with regard specifically to the style of approach. It is also questioned how this may have compromised the democratic debate, having as theoretical framework authors such as Angenot (2008) and Danblon (2004). Besides, with the help of categories such as those proposed by Brown and Levinson’s (1987) face theory, inspired by Goffman (1974), the research pointed out that deputies, regardless of their cultural and political orientation, tended to disregard the rules inherent in the debate, and the Parliament, understood as the public sphere of deliberation, revealed itself to be characteristic of dogmatic societies.