De identidades y no de propuestas: memoria y atribución en la construcción del sujeto político en el debate presidencial entre Keiko Fujimori y Ollanta Humala
Files
Date
2014-04-09
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
La investigación contenida en este documento es una aplicación de los principios de la Psicología
Discursiva (principalmente, Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards & Potter, 1992; y Edwards, 1997)
para el análisis del debate presidencial de 2011 entre Keiko Fujimori y Ollanta Humala rumbo a la
segunda vuelta electoral.
La Psicología Discursiva es un campo de investigación en Psicología Social de orígenes
relativamente recientes y orientación eminentemente cualitativa. Su aproximación metodológica
pone al lenguaje en un lugar central de la investigación a través del análisis detallado del habla en
interacción con el propósito de mostrar el funcionamiento retórico orientado hacia la acción social
de elementos de la psicología textualmente reespecificados. El interés persuasivo y,
consecuentemente, la configuración retórica del discurso político en los debates electorales han
sido mostrados por diferentes autores (Benoit, 1999; Benoit et al., 2002; Billig, 1987, 1991; Condor,
Taliega & Billig, 2013). De manera particular, Blas-Arroyo (1998, 1999, 2003, 2010, 2011) ha
mostrado el carácter agonístico y confrontativo del debate electoral en campaña en aras de dañar la
imagen del contendor. El plan general de este trabajo consiste, así, en mostrar cómo la construcción
de la memoria y la atribución sirven propósitos retóricos y construyen la identidad política en el
debate presidencial en cuestión.
Para esto, el investigador examina el uso retórico de descripciones fácticas de la memoria del
gobierno de Alberto Fujimori ofrecidas a lo largo del discurso de Ollanta Humala para confrontar a
Keiko como candidata; la atribución de inconsistencia y contradicción sobre él, por parte de Keiko
Fujimori, a partir del contraste de versiones del pasado seleccionadas con propósitos agonísticos
claramente ostensivos; y, finalmente, la construcción de la identidad emergente de los sucesivos
“posicionamientos del sujeto” (Davies & Harré, 1990), sobre sí y sobre el otro, que los candidatos
despliegan a lo largo de sus intervenciones, incluso cuando ofrecen propuestas. Se concluye, en
línea con la literatura revisada, que la identidad de sujeto político es un producto emergente de la
interacción y dependiente de los propósitos retóricos particulares de la institución.
Based on core concepts and analytical tools developed within the field of Discursive Psychology (especially, Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards & Potter, 1992; and Edwards, 1997), the researcher offers a thorough analysis of political identity construction in the 2011 Peruvian presidential debate between Keiko Fujimori and Ollanta Humala. Discursive Psychology is a relatively recent strand within qualitative discourse research in Social Psychology. Its methodological approach puts language in a central lieu by analyzing talk in actual interactional and ecological settings in order to provide a detailed account of the rhetorical and action-oriented functions of properly respecified psychological elements. The persuasive interest and according rhetorical configuration of political discourse in electoral debates has been shown by different authors (Benoit, 1999; Benoit et al. 2002; Billig, 1987, 1991; Condor, Taliega & Billig, 2013). Particularly, Blas-Arroyo (1998, 1999, 2003, 2010, 2011) has shown the agonistic and confrontational preference in the rhetoric of face-to-face presidential debates. The main goal of this work consists in showing how memory and attribution serve particular rhetorical purposes and construct political identity within the Peruvian presidential debate held between Keiko and Ollanta. In order to do so, the researcher examines, first, the rhetorical use of descriptions, offered by Ollanta, from Alberto Fujimori’s government in order to establish a unique and factual memory to confront Kieko Fujimori as a candidate; second, the analysis focuses on Keiko’s ostensive attribution of inconsistency and contradiction against Humala by means of contrasting carefully selected episodes from his past and constituting her own identity through opposition to this agonistic construction; and, lastly, the researcher inspects the construction of identity that emerges from successive “subject positions” (Davies & Harré, 1990) that both candidates display for oneself and the other even when proposals are being offered. The analysis as a whole leads us to conclude, according to the literature, that political persona is an emergent product of interaction and depends on the particular rhetorical purposes set by the institution.
Based on core concepts and analytical tools developed within the field of Discursive Psychology (especially, Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards & Potter, 1992; and Edwards, 1997), the researcher offers a thorough analysis of political identity construction in the 2011 Peruvian presidential debate between Keiko Fujimori and Ollanta Humala. Discursive Psychology is a relatively recent strand within qualitative discourse research in Social Psychology. Its methodological approach puts language in a central lieu by analyzing talk in actual interactional and ecological settings in order to provide a detailed account of the rhetorical and action-oriented functions of properly respecified psychological elements. The persuasive interest and according rhetorical configuration of political discourse in electoral debates has been shown by different authors (Benoit, 1999; Benoit et al. 2002; Billig, 1987, 1991; Condor, Taliega & Billig, 2013). Particularly, Blas-Arroyo (1998, 1999, 2003, 2010, 2011) has shown the agonistic and confrontational preference in the rhetoric of face-to-face presidential debates. The main goal of this work consists in showing how memory and attribution serve particular rhetorical purposes and construct political identity within the Peruvian presidential debate held between Keiko and Ollanta. In order to do so, the researcher examines, first, the rhetorical use of descriptions, offered by Ollanta, from Alberto Fujimori’s government in order to establish a unique and factual memory to confront Kieko Fujimori as a candidate; second, the analysis focuses on Keiko’s ostensive attribution of inconsistency and contradiction against Humala by means of contrasting carefully selected episodes from his past and constituting her own identity through opposition to this agonistic construction; and, lastly, the researcher inspects the construction of identity that emerges from successive “subject positions” (Davies & Harré, 1990) that both candidates display for oneself and the other even when proposals are being offered. The analysis as a whole leads us to conclude, according to the literature, that political persona is an emergent product of interaction and depends on the particular rhetorical purposes set by the institution.
Description
Keywords
Fujimori, Keiko--Discursos, Humala, Ollanta , 1963- --Discursos, Oratoria política--Perú, Campañas electorales--Perú--Historia--2011, Psicología social, Retórica--Aspectos políticos
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess