The purpose of indignation

negotiating the distance in comments on a feminicide crime

Abstract

As well observed by Alexandre Júnior (1998) in the preface to Rhetoric, there has been an explosion of rhetorical studies in recent decades. Therefore, many discourse researchers have dedicated themselves to rhetoric issues, often following the steps of Aristotle, who defines it as the art of persuasion, besides observing that it is the counterpart of dialectics, which is seen as argumentation nowadays. In 2007, Meyer, for whom rhetoric is the negotiation of differences between individuals, revived the classic Aristotelian opposition, pointing out that it is not possible to privilege rhetoric or dialectics. Instead, it is necessary to find alternatives to unify them, showing that both are in fact part of the same subject. Taking into account the “art of persuasion”, Aristotle argues that the speaker achieves his objective, in other words, achieves persuasion, when they use virtue, prudence, and benevolence. These elements are related to emotions, defined by him as “feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure” (ARISTOTLE, 1998, p. 106). Although Aristotle highlights the locus of emotions in discourse, some modern studies tend to neglect the pathos domain. Thus, we aim to discuss the role of emotion, especially indignation, in negotiating distances in comments on a feminicide crime, since these are fertile lands for expressing several emotions. In this study, we intend to observe to what extent indignation makes up an argumentative strategy, bringing the subjects that engage in symbolic exchanges on social networks even closer or pushing them away.