[Article] 理性から感性へ From Logos to Pathos

[論文] バーブリア, ミッチェル．1997. 「社会心理学における理性から感性への移行と学術議論：　説得の社会学におけるポストモダンとポジティビズムの融和」. 『アーギュメンテーション』. 11巻．35-50頁．

残念ながらこの論文はしっくりきません。

コミュニケーションの困難さは、確かに「世界観」の違いに起因するのでしょう。けれど、それはロゴスとパトスの分類とは全く関係のないところにあると思うのです。

私達が一つの「事実」をめぐって議論する時、その過程（理由付けや例示）で必ず他の事実を巻き込みます。そうした事実に関しても同意できない時、世の中はどうやって事実認定をするのですか。確かに説得力かもしれない。けれど説得されるマジョリティが信じるサブ事実には根拠も何もなく、単なる刷り込みがものをいっているのではありませんか。

「ああ、この人と話しても無駄だ」と思われる瞬間、ありませんか。
あれは、議論の前提となる予備知識もあまりにかけ離れていて、とても一つの議論に終わらないために諦めているのではありませんか。
世の中にはそういう関係が山ほどある。母語が違うなら尚更です。
少数者の言葉は静かに、水面下で、音も立てずに殺されていくのです。
表面的には議論を尽くされた上での結論として、大事に扱われる「事実」が、真実を嫌うのです。
言葉の、コミュニケーションの暴力性とはそういうものだと思うのです。

[Article] Berbrier, Mitchell. 1997. From Logos to Pathos in Social Psychology and Academic Argumentation: Reconciling Postmodernism and Positivism in a Sociology of Persuasion. Argumentation. vol.11. pp.35-50

I regretfully admit that I have to disagree with this article.

The reason why interpersonal/intercultural/interlinguistic communication is difficult might be indeed because of the differences of "world view" but not necessarily pathotic difference alone. They can be as much as logical.

When we argue upon a piece of fact, we inevitably involve other "facts" in reasoning and providing examples. When we do not agree on such either, the disagreement becomes a lot more complex. Our "world-view" is formed based on huge accumulation of "facts". When the audience have particular bias on such fact judgements for sub-reasons and sub-examples, it is only and violently decided by audience's bias. It's nothing to do with "logos" "pathos" distinction, I suppose.

I wonder...

...if communication just kills weaks softly in this silence, why do we wish to communicate this hard......? Where should we refind our enthusiasm after this futility?

[Abstract of the Article]
This paper argues that one can empirically test, via positivist methods, the post-modern attack on positivist epistemologies: Postmodern perspectives hold Knowledge and Truth to be intersubjective, consensus-driven social construction. But traditional scientific approaches to knowledge, exemplified here byh the cognitive social psycology of persuasion, seem pblivious to this and continue to detach the study of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions from that of knowledge, facts and reason. Abandoning these artificial distinctions in both epistemology and method woud enable this social psycology, reconstituted as a Sociology of Persuasion, to contribute greatly to illuminating the process of Truth and Knowledge construction in social interaction. Moreover, this would facilitate academic engagement in civic discourse.

--------------------------
In this paper, I wish to argue that if we are to understand each other, if we are to engage in interpersonal or intercultural communication, we must recognize the intersubjective bases to our truths and attend to the effective bases of knowledge. There is a role in civic life for academics (such as social psychologists) who take 'beliefs,' 'attitudes,' and 'knowledge' as their subject matter, but this role is dependent upon the recognition that knowledge is not a matter only of logical inference and reason (logos) but of persuasive rhetorical strategies aimed at aligning emotional ties to world-vies (pathos).
--------------------------

[English vocab for masako]
epistemology, intersubjective, exemplify, oblivious, pastor, align, murky, dialogic, inference, adhering, creed, sterility, esoteric, vibrant, myriad, dichotomy, preclude, nominalism, epitomize, deviance, snub, reifying, chasm, voluminous, scrutinize, cogent, disjunctive, spurious