Rhetorical imbalance and discursive violence

Abstract

Rhetoric usually has been considered as a democratic device for solving differences through dialogue and discussion in a space where the parties have the same possibilities for defeating the other, as in the famous story of Protagoras and Evatlo, and for arriving to agreements. This idea underlies one of the liberal rights: that of freedom of expression. However, rhetoric and discourse are manifested mainly in situations of difference or inequality between the parties, where some have the possibility of access to the word and fully exercise that right, while others are excluded from it (rhetorical imbalance). To the above is associated the idea that the discourse is a means of domination and exclusion. The word is a power in the hands of political power. To exercise and control it, discursive norms and standards have been established. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, it exposes the utopian idea of democratic rhetoric, based on the opinions of ancient authors and on historical examples. In the second, he describes a series of forms that political power uses to resolve disagreements between rulers and ruled by means of word and action, whether violent or non-violent, and focuses in particular on the analysis of the phenomenon of the so-called “perfect dictatorship”, characterized by violent action linked to non-violent discourse, a model that characterized the Mexican government in the second half of the twentieth century and which seems to be reiterated in the history of Latin American governments.