Perché argomentiamo? Consenso e dissenso tra retorica e democrazia

Is agreement the purpose of argumentation? This article compares two different approaches to argumentation, analysing its political effects. The comparison is undertaken in the first section of the paper considering two main groups of argumentation theories; one group in which argumentation aims to resolve a disagreement or a difference of opinion in order to reach an agreement (e.g. VAN EEMEREN e GROOTENDORST 2004; VAN EEMEREN et. al. 1993) and one group which is concerned with deep disagreements. The second section questions some political implications of the agreement-oriented perspective, which is often connected with a normative discussion model and with a negative evaluation of pathos and ethos. The last part of the paper outlines the socio-political advantages of a rhetorical approach to agreement and disagreement, which includes logos as well as pathos and ethos. In particular, the so-called rhetoric of dissensus, which takes into account the personal dimension of argumentation, shows the constructive dimension of conflict and the democratic value of polemic discourses and ad hominem arguments.