Resistencias discursivas: resignificar, bloquear y desviar
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2024
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad de La Serena (Chile)
Citations
Exportar
Citation
De Salvador Agra, S. (2024). Resistencias discursivas: resignificar, bloquear y desviar. Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura, 34(2), 742-762. doi.org/10.15443/RL3433
Abstract
Este artículo analiza la relevancia filosófica de la práctica del contradiscurso en el contexto de los lenguajes de odio. El contradiscurso, como respuesta que intenta contrarrestar el potencial dañino de otro discurso, alberga la posibilidad de afrontar injusticias, así como de promover justicia. Con el fin de evaluar el éxito discursivo de las respuestas a prácticas injustas, identifico tres estrategias contradiscursivas: la resignificación (Butler, 1997), el bloqueo (Langton, 2018b) y el desvío (Caponetto y Cepollaro, 2022). El objetivo es examinar el alcance del deshacer cosas con palabras desde el polo de una recepción activa. Para ello propongo una aproximación pragmática a determinadas injusticias sociales, en base a un desafío lingüístico capaz de arruinar la felicidad del acto de habla. Tras el análisis de las claves de cada una de las tres estrategias, paso a señalar algunos puntos de encuentro. Para concluir con aquello que hace posible conceptualizarlas como felices resistencias discursivas.
This article analyses the philosophical relevance of the practice of counterspeech in the context of hate speech. Counterspeech, as a response that attempts to counteract the harmful potential of another discourse, holds the possibility of confronting injustices as well as promoting justice. In order to evaluate the discursive success of responses to unjust practices, I identify three counterdiscursive strategies: resignifying (Butler, 1997), blocking (Langton, 2018b) and bending (Caponetto and Cepollaro, 2022). The aim is to examine the scope of undoing things with words from the perspective of an active reception. To do so, I propose a pragmatic approach to certain social injustices, based on a linguistic challenge capable of ruining the felicity of the speech act. After analysing the key features of each of the three strategies, I will indicate some points of convergence. To conclude with what makes it possible to conceptualize them as felicitous discursive resistances.
This article analyses the philosophical relevance of the practice of counterspeech in the context of hate speech. Counterspeech, as a response that attempts to counteract the harmful potential of another discourse, holds the possibility of confronting injustices as well as promoting justice. In order to evaluate the discursive success of responses to unjust practices, I identify three counterdiscursive strategies: resignifying (Butler, 1997), blocking (Langton, 2018b) and bending (Caponetto and Cepollaro, 2022). The aim is to examine the scope of undoing things with words from the perspective of an active reception. To do so, I propose a pragmatic approach to certain social injustices, based on a linguistic challenge capable of ruining the felicity of the speech act. After analysing the key features of each of the three strategies, I will indicate some points of convergence. To conclude with what makes it possible to conceptualize them as felicitous discursive resistances.