Insulte, disqualification, persuasion et tropes communicationnels : à qui l’insulte profite-t-elle ?

Abstract

Starting from a very broad definition of argumentation, we are interested in the link between insult and persuasion, in order to rethink the persuader / persuaded relationship, under the light of the insulter / insulted relationship. This fundamentally interactionist concept analyses first and foremost the object of persuasion, and the (possibility of) achievement of the action, as well as the staging, the set and the attending audience (to use again Goffman’s theatrical metaphor), without neglecting the emotional dimension, inherent to insult. We will attempt to demonstrate, based on excerpts taken from websites that enable users to post reviews of professionals, that any disqualification in the presence of third parties aims at persuading them to adhere to the implicit thesis supporting the validity of the derogatory qualification, which, on a perlocutionary level, manifests itself in two ways: persuading people to hate, i.e., to make them adhere to the disqualification of others; and persuading them to act, i.e., to make them do something sizeable that shows their adherence to the disqualification of others.

Keywords

• argumentation
• emotion
• insult
• review site