Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
20
DEBATA.RETORYKADLADEMOKRACJi
Tefreedomtodebateonlinealsocomesataprice.Itisthepolarisationofthepositions
ofthediferingparties,theemotionalisationofthemessages,andtheeristicradicalisa-
tion.Hence,thereisaneedtoheal,asmuchaspossible,thesituationofcommunicative
clashesinfavourofamorerationaliseddispute,withasignificantcognitivecomponent,
whichwouldpreservetheideaandtheformofdebate.
2.1.TheArchaeologyofDebate
Tegenresourcesofdebatearederivedfromcommunicativepracticesthatpredatethe
establishednameofthegenreinthelanguage.Identifyingthesesourcesisimportantfor
understandingthecurrentdevelopmentofdebateandrecognisingthemechanismsofrhe-
toricalcommunicationinpublicspace.Itisassumedthattheso-calledideationalpattern
ofagenrereachesitsmaturityintheprocessofhybridisation,thelappingupofrepeated
communicativepractices.Ifthesepracticesacquireasufcientnumberofrepetitionsfor
communicativememory,thenthestructureofthegenreisformed.
OneargumentinfavourofthehypothesisoftheCprehistory)ofgenresisthatthecom-
municativepracticestowhichthegenrenamerefersareearlierthanthenameitself.In
thecaseofdebate-muchearlier,sincethetermappearedinFrenchinthe11thto13th
centuriesundertheinfluenceofdialecticalpracticesincathedralschoolsandfromthere
itwasadaptedtoothervocabularies.TesamelexicalbasisisfoundinEnglish,German,
Czech,Latin,amongothers.DebattueremeansCtobeat)
,battuere-Ctobeat)
,Ctostrike)
(Bańkowski2000).Debateinitsbasic,rhetoricalsense,withoutmediacontextsandgra-
dients,isdefinedas“thepresentationofmutuallyexclusiveclaimsbytheircompeting
proponents,withtheaimofobtainingadecisionbythosejudgingthedispute”(Zarefsky
2006)oras“averbalformofdisputebasedonanantagonisticmasterscheme.Indoing
so,thepursuitofintellectualandlinguisticvirtuositycoexistswiththedesiretoconvey
contentfactually”(Schild1994:413).DebatingpracticeshavebeenknowninMediterra-
neancultureasfarbackasHomer.Similarritualverbaldisputes,whichresearchersclas-
sifyasdebates,arefoundinIndian,Chinese,andJapanesecultures(Branham1991:4-6).
TephenomenonofdebatingisknownfromAtheniandemocracy,whichwasacul-
tureofagon(Kocur2001,Cassola2011).Agonismmanifesteditselfbothinpolitics,
wherethemajoritywasright;inthecourts,wherethefateofthedefendantsseekingjus-
ticebeforeatribunalthatmadeitsverdictsbymajorityvotewasdecided;and,finally,on
thestagesoftheatres,whereitmanifesteditselfintheformofcharactersembroiledin
disputesoverexistentialandsocialvalues(Euripides)dramas)(Hansen1999,Czerwińska
1999,Croally1994).Tepracticesofdebating,areassociatedwiththeneedfororgan-
isedecision-makingprocessesandintroducingsuchregulationsintopublicdiscourseto
makeitmorefunctionalforcitizens,canalsobefoundinRepublicanRome(PinaPolo
2011).Exploringtherootsofdebate(Budzyńska-Dacainthisvolume)makesthesense
ofitssocialexistenceasacommunicationtoolmoreunderstandable.
2.2.DebateasaCognitiveTool
Debateislinkedtotheissueofcognitivepotential.Asamethodofimprovingtheways
ofacquiringknowledge,ithasbeenassociatedwithphilosophysinceantiquity.Itsspe-
cificsandqualitieswereparticularlyrevealedinPlato)sdialogues,whilemethodicallyit
