Search

This article interrogates the Western “confrontational” model of argumentation, discourse/counter-discourse, and a possible alternative to the Toulminian model, through the prism of Chinese argumentation. It is based on a selection of translated extracts from classical Chinese texts. The passages studied range from Confucius (6th century CE) to the 1st century CE. AEC. The conditions for working with translations are specified in a text using analogy. An argument based on a play on homonymous words (and considered invalid by the translator) falls into the vast domain of arguments based purely on linguistic maneuvers. Numerous cases illustrate the fundamental role of contradiction and ad hominem refutation as possible sources of an argumentative situation. The Western tradition has produced many systems of “rules for an honorable controversy”; we have come across a set of rules on a similar but different issue: the precautions to be selected when choosing a discussion partner. §4 is devoted to what seems to be a general characteristic of the period under consideration (Graham 1989), which produces sophisticated argumentation, without referring it to a theory of argumentation, but to the notion of ritual. In conclusion: the Western style of analysis is robust and can account for facts that are constant in other cultures. Perhaps the differences lie elsewhere?

This article addresses the topic of conspiracy theories from a rhetorical and philosophical perspective through a recent case study: the Netflix docuseries The Ancient Apocalypse by Graham Hancock1. In this TV series, the host – the author – hypothesizes a conspiracy by academic archaeology, which does not accept the idea of the existence of a highly technically developed ancient civilization that disappeared before the last ice age. The reason for this resistance on the part of archaeologists would be their desire to maintain a position of power and prestige that they would have to give up if they accepted a paradigm shift. We will use Hancock’s speeches as a textual corpus to be analyzed from a rhetorical point of view, and we will follow the philosophical hypothesis that conspiracy theories should be understood through the phenomenon of superstition (which is different from magic, § 1). We devote a paragraph to each technical proof used to achieve persuasion. First, éthos (§ 2), which focuses on the construction of the speaker as an outsider, credible because he is inconvenient. We then analyze the logos (§ 3), characterized by fallacies, ambivalent logic, and the mythological narrative as historical evidence. Finally (§ 4), we focus on pathos, which exhibits a form of detachment and a disposition to inaction.

Cet article aborde le thème des théories du complot d’un point de vue rhétorique et philosophique à partir d’une étude de cas récente : la série documentaire The Ancient Apocalypse de Graham Hancock, produite par Netflix1. Dans ce long documentaire, l’auteur émet l’hypothèse d’une conspiration voulue par les représentants académiques de l’archéologie : ils refuseraient à dessein de reconnaître l’existence d’une ancienne civilisation, hautement développée techniquement et disparue avant la dernière période glaciaire. La raison de cette résistance serait le désir des archéologues de maintenir une position de pouvoir et de prestige qu’ils devraient abandonner s’ils acceptaient un tel changement de paradigme. Le discours de Hancock servira de corpus textuel à analyser d’un point de vue rhétorique en vue d’interroger l’hypothèse philosophique selon laquelle les théories du complot peuvent être comprises comme une forme de superstition (que l’on distingue de la magie, § 1). Dans cette optique, nous nous intéressons à chacune des preuves techniques utilisée pour la persuasion. D’abord, l’éthos (§ 2) qui permet à l’orateur d’apparaitre comme une figure marginale et crédible car dérangeante. Nous analyserons ensuite le logos (§ 3), caractérisé par des sophismes, une logique ambivalente et un récit mythologique faisant office de preuve historique. Enfin (§ 4), nous nous concentrons sur le pathos, qui présente une forme de désintérêt et encourage une disposition à l’inaction.

Nombre d’experts du complotisme réduisent le phénomène à sa dimension rationnelle, voire cognitive. La dimension esthétique et le plaisir narratif sont pourtant manifestes dans les discours conspirationnistes, dont la rhétorique épouse étroitement les codes des fictions populaires. N’a-t-on pas sous-estimé la recherche du « plaire » ? Nous postulons une continuité entre l’attitude des publics face aux fictions et face aux « théories du complot », devenues relativement indiscernables dans le contexte contemporain de surabondance informationnelle. L’œuvre d’Umberto Eco est particulièrement éclairante en ce sens, car axée sur la question de l’indiscernabilité du vrai et du vraisemblable, et attachée à la métalepse comme transgression du pacte fictionnel. La réception de deux de ses grands romans « conspirationnistes », Le pendule de Foucault et Le cimetière de Prague, révèle une émancipation du trope métaleptique : le romancier, par ailleurs connu pour son antifascisme, se trouve en effet accusé de complaisance envers l’antisémitisme.

Cet article montre comment l’analyse des modes de résolution de l’incohérence dans le discours permet de repérer des indices révélateurs du caractère « complotiste » d’un discours et de le distinguer d’un discours « non-complotiste ». Il examine certains des principaux traits de définition du « complotisme » dans la littérature scientifique et, à partir de trois analyses de cas tirées d’entretiens réalisés avec des personnes opposées à la politique sanitaire française durant la crise de la Covid-19, montre la façon dont ces traits peuvent faire écho à certaines formes de résolution de l’incohérence dans le discours. Il propose de montrer comment certains éléments de la rhétorique complotiste peuvent fonctionner davantage comme une stratégie ponctuelle, voire opportuniste que comme une vision du monde totale et systématique.

Le modèle rhétorique qui a émergé depuis quelques années invite à diversifier les réponses pédagogiques pour prendre en charge la formation à l’esprit critique, et notamment le traitement pédagogique des discours conspirationnistes. La rhétorique y est souvent définie, par les rhétoriciens eux-mêmes, comme un art neutre du discours persuasif, sensible aux normes d’efficacité, mais indépendant de la vérité et de la morale. Cependant, il est clair que la rhétorique n’a pas pour seul objectif de former des « habiles persuadeurs », sans aucune autre considération, puisqu’elle se présente dans le même temps comme une éducation plus large à la citoyenneté démocratique. Ces orateurs, formés par la technique rhétorique, ne sont pourtant jamais définis, dans la mesure où les rhétoriciens contemporains ont progressivement abandonné la réflexion normative sur les (bons) orateurs, qui était autrefois menée dans la tradition rhétorique. Les discours conspirationnistes, plus vivement que d’autres objets pédagogiques, impliquent pourtant, par leur désignation même, des normes et des valeurs qui les isolent d’autres catégories de discours, jugés plus acceptables ou moins dangereux pour la vie démocratique. Face à ce constat, cet article propose une reconceptualisation de la rhétorique qui explicite la dimension normative de son projet d’éducation. Définie comme une discipline – et non plus comme une technique neutre –, la rhétorique viserait aujourd’hui à former de (bons) orateurs et de (bonnes) oratrices, qui possèdent des dispositions à (bien) agir, à (bien) parler et à (bien) penser dans le contexte de la démocratie pluraliste contemporaine et de ses valeurs. Ces dispositions pourraient être nommées, dans le vocabulaire de l’éthique des vertus, « vertus rhétoriques » ou « vertus des orateurs et des oratrices ».

This article shows that analyzing how incoherence is resolved in discourse makes it possible to identify clues revealing the “conspiracy” nature of a specific discourse and to distinguish it from a “non-conspiracy” one. It examines some of the main defining features of “conspiracism” in the scientific literature and, based on the analysis of three case studies drawn from interviews with people opposed to the French health policy during the Covid-19 crisis, shows how these features can be echoed in certain forms of resolution of incoherence in discourse. The study reveals that some elements of conspiracy rhetoric can function more as an occasional, or even opportunistic, strategy, than a total and systematic worldview.

Many experts on conspiracy theory reduce the phenomenon to its rational, cognitive dimension. 1Yet the aesthetic dimension and narrative pleasure are obvious in conspiracist discourse, whose rhetoric closely follows the codes of popular fiction. Have we not underestimated the quest to “please”? We postulate a continuity between audiences’ attitudes to fiction and to “conspiracy theories”, which have become relatively indistinguishable in the contemporary context of information overload. Umberto Eco’s work is particularly illuminating in this respect, as it focuses on the indistinguishability of the true and the plausible, and metalepsis as a transgression of the fictional pact. The reception of two of his major “conspiracy” novels, Foucault’s Pendulum and The Prague Cemetery, reveals an emancipation of the metaleptic trope: the novelist, although known for his anti-fascism, finds himself accused of complacency towards anti-Semitism.

The rhetorical model that has emerged in recent years calls for a diversification of pedagogical responses to critical thinking and, particularly, to the pedagogical treatment of conspiracy theories. Rhetoric is often defined, by the rhetoricians themselves, as a neutral art of persuasive discourse, sensitive to standards of effectiveness, but independent of truth and morality. However, the sole aim of rhetoric is not to train “skillful persuaders”, without any other consideration, since at the same time it presents itself as a broader education in democratic citizenship. These orators, trained by the rhetorical technique, are never defined, however, insofar as contemporary rhetoricians have gradually abandoned the normative reflection on (good) orators that was once conducted in the rhetorical tradition. Yet conspiratorial discourse, more vividly than other pedagogical objects, implies, by its very designation, norms, and values that isolate it from other categories of discourse deemed more acceptable or less dangerous to democratic life. Faced with this observation, this article proposes a reconceptualization of rhetoric that makes explicit the normative dimension of its educational project. Defined as a discipline – and no longer as a neutral technique – the aim of rhetoric today is to train (good) orators who possess the dispositions to act (well), speak (well) and think (well) in the context of contemporary pluralist democracy and its values. These dispositions could be called, in the vocabulary of virtue ethics, “rhetorical virtues” or “speaker virtues”.

These critical reflections focus on the status that one of the founders of the French trend of Discourse Analysis, Patrick Charaudeau, attributes to argumentative rhetoric in the language sciences. Although it is mentioned in his 2023 book, rhetoric does not feature in the main inventories of the various currents of linguistics. The author also analyzes some of the major strategies employed by the speaking subject, which have always played a fundamental role in argumentative rhetoric and, more specifically, in Perelman’s New Rhetoric, without referring to them. The aim here is not only to problematize these epistemic paradoxes, but also to show how rhetoric could contribute to enriching three of the key notions of this book: the holistic function of the communication contract; the defense of the existence of a partial, but irrefutable autonomy of the speaking subject and its double: the interpreting subject; and the notion of influence.

Conspiracy theories are now central to our democratic societies, the academic world, and civil society. All seem to agree that we should be able to prevent the presence and spread of conspiracy theories in the public sphere. While this objective is generally recognized, the way to achieve it remains unclear. Like others, we believe that interdisciplinarity is one possible answer. However, this path presents several challenges, the first of which is mutual understanding. In this article, we examine the book of Iacone, Loria, and Meini on conspiracy (2023), to show how the psychological and rhetorical approaches to conspiracy theories can dialogue and understand each other.

This text explores the impact of social media on interactions and social relationships, highlighting their role as echo chambers and sources of polarization. It emphasizes the unique characteristics of social networks, such as their affordances – meaning the incentives they offer for action – and their influence on user behavior. By leveraging post-digital theory, which removes the distinction between online and offline worlds, the article proposes to examine the diversity of online discourses. This approach aims to better understand the dynamics of discourse fragmentation and their implications for the reconfiguration of social relationships.

This paper aims to explore how institutions may counteract conspiracy theories using appropriate discursive resources. We use a rhetorical approach to analyze the first European information campaign launched in 2020 to counteract conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines. On this basis, we advance a series of practical recommendations for institutions to counteract conspiracy theories through information campaigns.

Le but de cet article est d’explorer la manière dont les institutions peuvent contrer les théories du complot en utilisant des ressources discursives appropriées. Nous analysons, en utilisant une approche rhétorique, la première campagne d'information européenne lancée en 2020 pour lutter contre les théories du complot sur les vaccins Covid-19. Sur cette base, nous proposons une série de recommandations pratiques pour aider les institutions à contrer les théories du complot par des campagnes d’information.

Le complotisme est désormais un phénomène central dans nos sociétés démocratiques, dans le monde académique et dans la société civile. Tous et toutes semblent a priori concorder, il faudrait pouvoir lutter contre la présence et diffusion des théories du complot dans l’espace public. Si cet objectif est globalement partagé, la question de comment procéder reste floue. Nous pensons, à l’instar d’autres, que l’interdisciplinarité est l’une des voies pour y arriver. Cette voie présente cependant de nombreux défis dont l’un des premiers est la compréhension réciproque. Dans cet article, nous proposons une réflexion dans cette direction : nous essayerons de montrer que l’approche psychologique et l’approche rhétorique du complotisme peuvent dialoguer et se comprendre.

Recensione di Giulio Iacoli, Mascolinità in gioco. Politiche della rappresentazione in Buzzati. Quaderni del Centro Buzzati, Fabrizio Serra, 2023.

Un spectre hante la critique : le spectre du surréalisme. Toutes les puissances de la vieille critique se sont unies en une alliance sacrée pour traquer ce spectre : le « pape du surréalisme » et Sartre ; Nadeau et Schuster ; les Surréalistes Révolutionnaires et les Situationnistes. Quelle opposition, parmi ses adversaires, ne l’a pas accusé d’être dépassé, voire trépassé de son vivant ? Laquelle, à son tour, n’a pas renvoyé à ses adversaires de tout acabit l’épithète infamante de surréaliste ? Il en résulte un double enseignement. Déjà le surréalisme est reconnu comme une puissance par toutes les puissances de la critique. Et donc, il vaut mieux le rabattre au conte du spectre, en dépit des expressions concrètes que les surréalistes de diverses nationalités exposent à la face du monde entier. La critique historiographique du surréalisme – méconnu après 1969 – requiert une approche critique comparée de son paradigme dominant.

La diffusione della comunicazione attraverso canali non convenzionali, in primo luogo i social network, sta alimentando una serie di preoccupazioni relative all’emersione della cosiddetta narrazione cospirativa. Il saggio cerca di comprendere la struttura di tale tipologia narrativa evidenziando come la società occidentale presenti i sintomi di quella che Girard chiamava «crisi sacrificale» (ricerca spasmodica di un capro espiatorio e spirito profetico diffuso). Tuttavia, lo storytelling emergente non riesce ad approdare a uno schema narrativo tragico, che potrebbe dischiudere la possibilità di una catarsi per i fruitori, ma resta intrappolato in una narrazione fortemente polarizzata. Questo tipo di struttura caratterizza sia le interpretazioni della realtà dette comunemente complottiste sia le contro-spiegazioni a difesa dell’establishment che si auto-definiscono scientifiche e demistificatorie. Questa narrazione riflette la nostra regressione immaginativa dovuta all’impossibilità di pensare un futuro al di fuori del sistema capitalista, i cui squilibri vengono percepiti come naturali e inevitabili.

Recensione di Anna Baldini, A regola d’arte. Storia e geografia del campo letterario italiano (1902-1936) (Quodlibet, 2023).

Italo Calvino’s The Cosmicomics, despite its pluralistic openness to multiple critical interpretations by various theoretical and conceptual frameworks including post-humanism, science-fiction studies, postmodernism and many more, deals with the fundamental issue of the human’s physical and conceptual inseparability from Nature or the cosmos. The human’s inseparability from the non-humans (including animals, vegetation and inanimate matters) has profound ecological implications. What Calvino establishes in the mentioned text is the human’s inevitable and unconditional inclusion in Nature rather than his self-proclaimed, physical/conceptual exclusion from the same. This is vindicated by the fictional illustrations in the text in which the ‘human’ is posited as a mere member of the ecosystem, and not as its master. In this context, this article endeavours to explore and analyze the said ecological implications of the mentioned work in the light of some the established ecological theories and postulations.

Questo articolo si propone di analizzare La noia (1960) di Alberto Moravia, Un amore (1963) di Dino Buzzati e La bambolona (1967) di Alba de Céspedes, come tre opere che, ponendo al centro della narrazione l’ossessione erotica di un personaggio borghese, riescono a rendere conto della crisi della mascolinità (Gunsberg) che si sviluppa durante gli anni Sessanta e che trova nella figura dell’inetto (sessuale) la sua più vivida espressione. In primo luogo ci concentreremo sulle le modalità di rappresentazione del desiderio dei tre protagonisti, per poi focalizzarci sulla centralità del tema del possesso e sulle sue forme – borghesi – di espressione (denaro e matrimonio). Infine, studieremo l’evoluzione dei tre personaggi femminili (Cecilia, Laide e Ivana), da cui i protagonisti sono attratti, che da oggetti di desiderio si smarcano dal male gaze e si affermano come soggetti di desiderio.

Recensione di Stefano Ballerio (a cura di), Morale della fabula. Biblion, 2023.

Recensione di Valentina Sturli, Professori di desiderio. Seduzione e rovina nel romanzo del Novecento. Carocci, 2024.

L’anima degli altri (1935) di Alba de Céspedes costituisce un’esperienza letteraria fondamentale nella produzione dell’autrice. Poco indagata dalla critica, la raccolta di racconti si configura come un laboratorio letterario in cui appaiono già evidenti i nuclei tematici della produzione successiva della scrittrice. Scopo del presente contributo sarà di indagare le modalità attraverso cui in particolare il tema del doppio è impiegato in alcuni racconti per mezzo di duplicazioni letterarie, pittoriche e fotografiche. Attraverso uno studio che ponga in relazione tali categorie con alcuni temi tipici del fantastico ottocentesco come il magnetismo degli oggetti, la non-inerzia dell’inerte, la follia, si osserverà come l’identità e i ruoli sociali di ciascun personaggio siano moltiplicati e distrutti, sostituiti in ogni testo dalla propria replica artistica, capace di assumere valore attivo e divenire più vera del vero.

La tesi principale di quest’articolo è ‘nessuna identità senza confini’. Risulta perciò necessario interrogarsi sull’identità, nella consapevolezza che si tratta di una nozione polisemica: vengono distinti anzitutto due modi dell’identità, la coincidenza (il soggetto indiviso) e la non-coincidenza con se stessi (il soggetto diviso). Questa distinzione è essenziale per comprendere la differenza tra ideologia e teoria: l’identity politics è soltanto un’ideologia dell’identità; e come ogni ideologia è schematica, dogmatica, ed estremamente povera. Ecco perché si occupa unicamente delle forme di soggettività più semplici, e che possiamo definire mediante proprietà (donna, nero, ecc.) oppure mediante parti. Uno degli obiettivi di quest’articolo è mostrare l’arretratezza filosofica, che è anche arretratezza politica, della identity politics. Viene poi indicata la via della complessità, anzitutto tramite la psicoanalisi. La rivoluzione di Freud (Psicologia delle masse, 1921) non è stata però compresa da Lacan. La concezione di un soggetto diviso e flessibile potrà venir sviluppata, da un lato, andando oltre la scolastica lacaniana e, dall’altro, esplorando la dimensione strategica, che continua a venir ignorata dalle teorie dell’evento così come da quelle dell’istituzione.

Recensione di Giuliana Benvenuti (a cura di), La letteratura oggi. Romanzo, editoria, transmedialità (Einaudi, 2023).

L’articolo si propone di presentare una poesia inedita di Luzi, rinvenuta in uno dei suoi quaderni personali, attualmente conservati al Gabinetto Vieusseux. Il componimento, intitolato Brodskij a Firenze, risale al 1995 e rappresenta la risposta dell’autore alle critiche rivoltegli da Brodskij durante la sua visita a Firenze, nella primavera dello stesso anno. Il primo paragrafo delinea il retroscena dello scontro tra i due protagonisti, che consiste nel tentativo portato avanti da Luzi di promuovere la sua opera in Svezia, attraverso l’editore Oreglia, nella speranza di vincere il Nobel. Il secondo paragrafo racconta le varie fasi della disputa: l’arrivo di Brodskij in città, le accuse da lui mosse al collega italiano di nutrire aspirazioni eccessive verso il premio svedese, la replica di Luzi sui giornali e le reazioni pubbliche e private che seguirono. Infine, nel terzo paragrafo, l’inedito viene presentato, descritto filologicamente e sottoposto a un’analisi critica.

Review of Arthur M. Jacobs, Neurocomputational Poetics. How the Brain Processes Verbal Art. Anthem Press, 2023.

L’articolo consta di due parti indipendenti l’una dall’altra ma intimamente connesse nella loro genesi ideativa, che indagano due diversi aspetti dell’opera di Primo Levi. La prima si sofferma sulle categorie concettuali del ‘vedere’ e dell ‘inventare’ nel farsi della ‘creazione’ letteraria che si configura come un’operazione retorica di inventio e dispositio di intuizioni puntiformi. La seconda propone una riflessione sul ruolo ambivalente che l’empatia svolge nell’intera produzione di Primo Levi.

Nel 1983 Umberto Eco pubblica il saggio “L’antiporfirio”, all’interno del volume curato da Gianni Vattimo e Pier Aldo Rovatti intitolato Il pensiero debole. Il testo echiano segna uno spartiacque teorico tra i primi due romanzi dell’autore, Il nome della rosa (1980) e Il pendolo di Foucault (1988), permettendo di capire come la narrazione enciclopedica che caratterizza entrambe le opere costituisca una strategia interpretativa della realtà. Non solo: quello che qui preme mettere in evidenza è la modalità differente con cui Eco si accosta alla complessità del mondo attraverso l’impianto tematico e strutturale del racconto. Se le avventure parigine del Pendolo risultano un’applicazione dell’idea diffusiva del rizoma, la matrice del Nome della rosa corrisponde piuttosto all’organizzazione del micelio, la filigrana sotterranea dei funghi che si arresta là dove l’organismo ha sufficienti sostanze nutritive e possibilità di farsi coltivare dalle altre specie viventi, mettendo un argine al disordine dei fenomeni

Negli anni Settanta, con la pubblicazione di La violenza e il sacro (1972), René Girard coglie le implicazioni sociali dell’ipotesi mimetica nata dallo studio del romanzo moderno e contenuta in Menzogna romantica e verità romanzesca (1961) e Dostoevskij. Dal doppio all’unità (1963). Uno studio incrociato degli strumenti ermeneutici che Girard adotta per ciascuna di queste fasi ci permette di tracciare una precisa strada ermeneutica che colleghi la figura di Edipo e il suo crimine, il parricidio, ai grandi epilettici del romanzo dostoevskiano. Dopo aver introdotto i termini con cui Girard coglie la derivazione paterna dell’orgoglio in Dostoevskij e dopo aver illustrato i caratteri del capro espiatorio girardiano presenti nella tragedia sofoclea Edipo re, il saggio analizza il ruolo dell’epilessia nella biografia e nell’opera di Dostoevskij, sino a giungere ad una rilettura girardiana degli schemi narrativi del romanzo I fratelli Karamazov, simbolo per eccellenza del delitto parricida.

Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) is not currently a highly cited author in the field of literary studies. Along with other inescapable names of the heyday of structuralism, he has fallen into relative oblivion. Although he undoubtedly continues to be recognized as one of the giants of the Human Sciences during the 20th century, his theoretical conceptions and methodological proposals find limited applicability and have been subjected to severe objections by leading contemporary scholars. However, there is ground to believe that this neglect arises from the fact that his entire output has been reduced to the essentialist positions of his later North American period. In this paper, we contend that Jakobson´s ideas belonging to the earlier periods of Russian formalism and Czech structuralism have been all to often overlooked, and might have a revitalizing and stimulating impact on contemporary disciplinary discussions.

The article provides a close reading of the novel Το βιβλίο της Κατερίνας [The Book of Katerina] by Auguste Corteau, highlighting its connections and divergences from Το τρίτο Στεφάνι [The Third Wedding Wreath] by Kostas Taktsis. It explores issues of social gender, family, and autobiography through the lens of camp discourse. From a theoretical perspective, the analysis builds on Fabio Cleto’s considerations of queer readings of camp discourse.

The interview conducted with Christopher Tindale by Ruth Amossy in this special issue on “Challenging Rhetoric” proposes a survey of Tindale’s innovative work. Developing from Informal Logic to a theory of Rhetorical Argumentation, it eventually leads to an anthropological approach that challenges the Western rhetorical tradition. It assumes that ways of reasoning are culture-dependent and that arguments as reason-giving can take many forms beyond the ones described in the Western tradition. It thus tackles the question of cross-cultural communication in its argumentative dimension. In this framework it presents an “encounter rhetoric” exploring the encounter between people from very different cultures and looking at how a mutual cognitive environment is able, over time, to emerge and allow for argumentation.

In the interview he gave to Marianne Doury and Théophile Robineau, Marc Angenot discusses the place of rhetoric in his work. Recalling that ancient rhetoric was essentially based on the judicial model, he emphasizes its interest, but also its limitations, in exploring the social discourse he seeks to account for. He takes up its global perspective, mobilizing ethos, pathos and logos, the combined consideration of which is necessary for an understanding of ideas and the way in which they are carried and discussed in society. But he insists on the necessity of taking account of the fact that social discourse is embedded in a more or less long-term history, which is a prerequisite for its intelligibility. Taking social discourse as the object of research also requires us to reconsider the notion of situation as traditionally understood in rhetoric, and to redefine the way we look at the question of persuasion.

L’interview de Stuart Selber réalisée par Jim Ridolfo dans ce numéro spécial intitulé « La rhétorique en-dehors des sentiers battus » donne un aperçu de la carrière innovante et marquante de Selber dans le domaine de la rhétorique numérique. De la monographie primée de Selber, Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, parue en 2004, à sa toute dernière monographie Institutional Literacies : Engaging Academic IT Contexts for Writing and Communication, nous discutons de la manière dont les littératies et les paysages de la rhétorique numérique ont changé de manière significative et continueront à changer alors que nous entrons dans une ère où se multiplient les préoccupations en matière de protection de la vie privée, de deep fakes et d’IA générative. Le travail du professeur Selber est un excellent exemple de la façon dont la recherche en rhétorique numérique contemporaine révolutionne le domaine de la rhétorique traditionnelle et l’enseignement de la littératie, en réélaborant ses notions de base et en élargissant ses applications futures.

After having theorized an anthropological approach to the persuasive function and explored the issues at stake in the rationality regimes of practical reason, Emmanuelle Danblon has devoted the last ten years to a realistic, “artisanal” approach to rhetoric practiced in the context of rhetorical exercises. The aim of these exercises is to revive a lost “taste” for truth. Rather than taking fallacious arguments as their object, and giving primacy to descriptive theoretical deciphering of "alternative" truths and statements deemed irrational, Emmanuelle Danblon proposes that participants in these exercises first undergo a collective initiation to a typology of arguments, followed by role-playing in which they try to defend positions contrary to their own, or which seem paradoxical, difficult to imagine or irrational, against other participants defending the opposite points of view. The stakes are both cognitive and ethical: understanding the Other from the inside rather than judging him or her, making progress in self-knowledge and working in a craft mode to rediscover a taste for truth.

Michael A. Gilbert has contributed significantly to the field of contemporary Argumentation Theory. Most notable are his multi-modal theory of argumentation and coalescent argumentation, models of argument that he developed to address how interlocutors actually argue in the marketplace. His ideas were not always understood, appreciated, or acknowledged by the larger argumentation community. Recently, though, the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric (in Ontario, Canada) recognized Gilbert’s contributions in a week-long Institute dedicated to his scholarship. Provoking as his theories might seem, rhetorical scholars can find some common ground with Gilbert’s works.

Representations of « African women » are not neutral. They reveal a certain positioning regarding women in this part of the world. This article proposes to analyze the syntagm « African woman » and its variants, as a socio-discursive imaginary, in French politico-diplomatic discourse. Using the Discourse Analysis approach, we examine the knowledge of opinion that continues to affect the image of women on the African continent. Particular attention is paid to a corpus of speeches by French politicians, delivered in different contexts and in relation to various discursive constraints. The aim is to show how the « African woman » came to be, as an imaginary, how it circulates within social groups, and, finally, how political leaders use it in their speeches. This use operates a set of categorizations, maintaining the « African woman » in social imaginaries at odds with the realities of Africa.

Dans cet essai, Sonja K. Foss est interviewée par Helene A. Shugart sur la rhétorique invitationnelle, une forme de rhétorique ancrée dans les principes féministes qui remet en question la tradition rhétorique classique axée sur la persuasion. Elle décrit les événements clés qui l’ont amenée à s’intéresser à la fois à la rhétorique et au féminisme, et présente les contextes féministes et rhétoriques dans lesquels sa théorie s’est développée. Elle en explique les principes et les hypothèses-clés et parle de sa réception dans la discipline de la communication, tout en offrant quelques applications de la théorie dans le monde réel. Elle donne un autre exemple de projet dans lequel elle intègre féminisme et rhétorique - sa théorisation de deux paradigmes de changement - et conclut en suggérant comment elle applique dans sa propre vie certains des principaux concepts qui ont émergé de cette intégration du féminisme et de la rhétorique.

In this essay, Sonja K. Foss is interviewed by Helene A. Shugart about invitational rhetoric, a form of rhetoric rooted in feminist principles that challenges the classical rhetorical tradition’s focus on persuasion. She begins by describing key events that led to her interest in both rhetoric and feminism and notes the feminist and rhetorical contexts in which invitational rhetoric developed. She explains the key tenets and assumptions of invitational rhetoric and its reception in the communication discipline and provides some real world applications of the theory. She offers another example of a project in which she integrates feminism and rhetoric – her theorizing of two paradigms of change – and concludes by suggesting how she applies in her own life some of the major concepts that emerged from her integration of feminism and rhetoric.

Michael A. Gilbert a apporté une contribution significative à la théorie contemporaine de l’argumentation. Ses apports les plus remarquables résident dans sa théorie multimodale de l’argumentation et dans sa théorie de l’argumentation dite « coalescente », des modèles novateurs qu’il a développés pour étudier la façon dont les interlocuteurs discutent réellement dans la vie courante. Ses idées n’ont pas toujours été comprises, appréciées ou reconnues par l’ensemble de la communauté des spécialistes d’argumentation. Néanmoins, récemment, le Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (en Ontario, au Canada) a reconnu l’importance de sa contribution en organisant un institut d’une semaine entière consacré à ses travaux. Aussi provocantes que puissent paraître ses théories, les spécialistes de la rhétorique n’en peuvent pas moins trouver un certain terrain d’entente avec ses travaux.

Dans l’entretien qu’il a accordé à Marianne Doury et Théophile Robineau, Marc Angenot revient sur la place de la rhétorique dans ses travaux. Rappelant que l’ancienne rhétorique se fonde essentiellement sur le modèle judiciaire, il en souligne l’intérêt, mais aussi les limites, pour explorer le discours social dont il cherche à en rendre compte. Il en reprend la perspective globalisante, mobilisant ethos, pathos et logos, dont la prise en compte conjuguée est nécessaire à la compréhension des idées et de la façon dont elles sont portées et discutées dans la société. Mais il insiste sur la nécessaire prise en compte de l’inscription du discours social dans une histoire de plus ou moins long terme, condition à son intelligibilité. Le fait de se donner le discours social comme objet de recherche oblige également à reconsidérer la notion de situation telle que l’envisage traditionnellement la rhétorique, et à redéfinir le regard porté sur la question de la persuasion.