Como se caracteriza uma cultura argumentativa?

Abstract

Uma forte cultura argumentativa caracteriza-se por, pelo menos, cinco tensões produtivas, entre: comprometimento e contingência; partidarismo e comedimento; convicção pessoal e sensibilidade ao auditório; razoabilidade e subjetividade; e decisão e não fechamento. Diferenças na forma como comunidades gerenciam essas tensões explicam a existência de múltiplas culturas argumentativas e, por conseguinte, porque precisamos compreender a argumentação tanto no interior de diferentes culturas quanto entre elas. O artigo desenvolve essas cinco tensões produtivas, apresenta alguns exemplos de culturas argumentativas que as negociam de diferentes maneiras e reflete sobre o que significa argumentar entre culturas em um mundo cada vez mais diverso e, ao mesmo tempo, cada vez mais atomizado.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

David Zarefsky, Northwestern University

Professor emérito da Northwestern University, Estados Unidos.

Nathalia Akemi Sato Mitsunari, Universidade de São Paulo

Doutora em Letras pela Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil (2025).

Gabriel Isola-Lanzoni, Universidade de São Paulo

PhD in Linguistics enrolled in the Graduate Program in Philology and Portuguese Language at the University of São Paulo (PPG-FLP/USP). Gabriel undertook a doctoral internship at the University of Porto (Portugal) from September 2022 to February 2023. His academic journey includes a Master's degree obtained from the same Graduate Program in 2020, as well as Bachelor and Licensee Degrees in Languages and Literature with a specialization in Portuguese Linguistics, all earned from USP in 2018. His master's research, funded by CAPES, focused on "Image-text cohesion: a systemic-functional study on multimodality in digital media." This work established a theoretical-methodological framework to describe the complex interactions between verbal and visual elements in texts produced, disseminated, and consumed within digital media contexts. His current doctoral research delves into the intricacies of argumentation in the realm of science communication. This investigation primarily emphasizes the pivotal role of reservations, refutations, and counter-refutations in texts engaging in contemporary debates related to scientific topics.
Gabriel is a member of two research groups: "Language, Argumentation, and Discourse Studies - ELAD" (at UESC/CNPq) and "Systemics, Environments, and Languages - SAL" (at UFSM/CNPq). He is a member of Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA). He has also served as an advisor for Course Completion Work in the field of Pedagogy at the Virtual University of the State of São Paulo (UNIVESP, Brazil). Currently, he holds the position of Associate Editor for the journal "Linha D'Água" (USP, Brazil) and serves as a member of the editorial board for the journal "REDIS" (University of Porto, Portugal).

References

BAILYN, Bernard (ed.). The Debate on the Constitution. Ypsilanti, MI: Library of America, 1993. 2 v.

BROCKRIEDE, Wayne. Where is Argument? Journal of the American Forensic Association [atualmente: Argumentation and Advocacy], v. 11, p. 179-182, 1975.

BRYANT, Donald C. Rethoric: Its Functions and Its Scope. Quartely Journal of Speech, v. 39, p. 401-424, 1953.

EHNINGER, Douglas. Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its Limitations, and Its Uses. Speech Monographs [atualmente: Communication Monographs], v. 37, p. 101-110, 1970.

EUBANKS, Cecil L. New York: Federalism and the Political Economy of Union. In: GILLESPIE, Michael Allen; LIENESCH, Michael (ed.). Ratifying the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989. p. 314-315.

GOODNIGHT, G. Thomas. Controversy. In: Argument in Controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale: Speech Communication Association, 1991. p. 1-13.

JOHNSTONE Jr., Henry W. Some Reflections on Argumentation. In: NATANSON, Maurice; JOHNSTONE Jr., Henry W. Philosophy, Rethoric, and Argumentation. 3 ed. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 1965. p. 1-9. NT 2

JOHNSTONE Jr., Henry W. Some Reflections. In: JOHNSTONE Jr., Henry W. The Problem of the Self. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 1970. p. 150.

KENNEDY, John F. Radio and television report to the American people on the Soviet arms buildup in Cuba, October 22, 1962. In: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Public papers of the Presidents: John F. Kennedy, 1962. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. p. 807.

McCARTHY, Thomas. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1978. p. 308.

PERELMAN, Chaïm; OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, Lucie. The New Rethoric: A Tratise on Argumentation. Tradução de John Wilkinson e Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. NT 3

TANNEN, Deborah. The Argument Culture. New York: Random House, 1998.

TOULMIN, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.NT 4

van EEMEREN, Frans H.; GROOTENDORST, Rob. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004

van EEMEREN, Frans H.; GROOTENDORST, Rob. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1992.

van EEMEREN, Frans H.; HOUTLOSSER, Peter. Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In: van EEMEREN, Frans H.; HOUTLOSSER, Peter (ed.). Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002. p. 131-159.

ZAREFSKY, David. Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. Chicago: University of Chicado Press, 1990. p. 1-39.

Published
2026-06-30
How to Cite
Zarefsky, D., Mitsunari, N. A. S., & Isola-Lanzoni, G. (2026). Como se caracteriza uma cultura argumentativa?. Revista Eletrônica De Estudos Integrados Em Discurso E Argumentação, 26(1), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.47369/eidea-26-1-5010
Section
Tradução