Political polarization: Analysis of parliamentary discourse on the gender approach in Peru
Abstract
In May 2019, the then Minister of Education Flor Pablo Medina was interpellated due to the appearance of some links with sexual content in the textbooks of 3rd grade of secondary school, alleging that these links were part of the application of the gender approach in the Peruvian educational curriculum. Thus, this article aims to analyze the discursive strategies of political polarization used by parliamentarians in the process of justifying ideas and positions regarding the gender approach in the educational curriculum. For this purpose, the speeches of 29 parliamentarians who spoke on the topic of the study were selected. With the Corpus-Based Study delimited, discourse analysis was carried out applying Grounded Theory. Finally, the results of the study revealed that the polarization strategy of the group of parliamentarians against the gender approach was mainly based on a moral-religious discourse that appealed to guilt and fear, and on the side of the parliamentarians in favor of the gender approach, the emphasis of the discursive strategies of political polarization was based on a normative-institutional orientation.
References
Bitonte, M. y Dumm, Z. (2007). El discurso parlamentario: ¿diálogo en la torre de Babel? En R. Marafioti (Ed.). Parlamentos. Teoría de la argumentación y debate parlamentario (pp. 169-195). Biblos.
Brasted, M. (2012). Move on: The rethoric of polarization. Communication Faculty Publication, 3, 1-27. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cmc_facpub
Cheney, G. (1983). The rethoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143-158.
Chilton, P. (2004) Anlysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Díaz, P. y Posada, J. (2012). Argumentación o retórica, una de las piezas claves para la construcción de la realidad social. Anagramas, 10(21), 81-94.
Dorna, A. (1993). Estudios sobre el discurso político: El papel persuasivo de las figuras retóricas y de la gestualidad. Psicología política (6), 117-130.
Fiorina, M. y Abrams, S. (2008). Political Polarization in the America Public. The Annual Review of Political Science, 563-588.
Hirschman, A. (1991). Retóricas de la intransigencia. s.l.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Ilie, C. (2001). Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Ideological Confrontation. En D. Rene, & et.al (Eds.), Language and Ideology. Volume II Descriptive Cognitive Approaches (pp. 235-261). John Benjamins Publishing .
Ilie, C. (2002). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Languange and Politics, 2(1), 71-92.
Ilie, C. (2003). Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse. Studies in Communication Sciences, 3(1), 25-53.
King, A. y Anderson, F. (1971). Nixon, Agnew and the “Silent Majority”: A Case Study in the Rhetoric of Polarization. Western Speech, 35(4), 243-255.
Krebs, R. y Jackson, P. (2007). Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 35-66.
Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1995). Metáforas de la vida cotidiana. Cátedra.
LeBas, A. (2018). Can Polarization Be Positive? Conflict and Institutional Development”. American Behavioral Scientist , 62(1), 59-74.
Martin, J. (2016). Capturing Desire: Rethorical Strategies and the Affectivity of Discourse. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(1), 143-160.
McCaffrey, D. y Keys, J. (2000). Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(1), 41-61.
Raum, R. y Measell, J. (1974). Wallace and his ways: A study of rethorical genre of polarization. Central States Speech Journal, 25(1), 28-35.
Sanchez, F. (2009). Usos metáforicos del lenguaje político español. La metáfora estructural en los debates sobre el estado de la nación. A survey of corpus-based research, pp. 989- 1007.
Sanchez, F., (2010). Eufemismos y Disfemismos en el Discurso Parlamentario Español. En: E. Montoro del Arco y J. Moya Corral(Eds). El español en contexto. Actas del las XV Jornadas sobre la lengua española y su enseñanza. Universidad de Granada, pp. 231-235.
Strauss, A. y Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Universidad de Antioquía. van Dijk, T. (1994). Discurso, Poder y Cognición Social (Conferencias). s.l., Maestría en Lingüística. Escuela de Ciencia del Lenguaje.
van Dijk, T. (1999). Análisis Crítico del Discurso. Anthropos.
Copyright (c) 2023 Argumentos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
