Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice

Public controversies between socialists and anarchists became an usual practice for both groups; in 1902, when these controversies are relatively settled and regulated, they were frequently performed in theatres located in different Argentinian cities and they managed to attract large audiences. The...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Di Stéfano, Mariana
Formato: Artículo revista
Lenguaje:Español
Publicado: Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Letras 2019
Materias:
public political controversies
glotopolitics
dialectic
rhetorics
controversias públicas políticas
glotopolítica
dialéctica
retórica
Acceso en línea:https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/heterotopias/article/view/27335
Aporte de:
Heterotopías de Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
id I10-R333-article-27335
record_format ojs
institution Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
institution_str I-10
repository_str R-333
container_title_str Heterotopías
language Español
format Artículo revista
topic public political controversies
glotopolitics
dialectic
rhetorics
controversias públicas políticas
glotopolítica
dialéctica
retórica
spellingShingle public political controversies
glotopolitics
dialectic
rhetorics
controversias públicas políticas
glotopolítica
dialéctica
retórica
Di Stéfano, Mariana
Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
topic_facet public political controversies
glotopolitics
dialectic
rhetorics
controversias públicas políticas
glotopolítica
dialéctica
retórica
author Di Stéfano, Mariana
author_facet Di Stéfano, Mariana
author_sort Di Stéfano, Mariana
title Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
title_short Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
title_full Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
title_fullStr Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
title_full_unstemmed Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
title_sort public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice
description Public controversies between socialists and anarchists became an usual practice for both groups; in 1902, when these controversies are relatively settled and regulated, they were frequently performed in theatres located in different Argentinian cities and they managed to attract large audiences. The anarchist journal La Protesta Humana and the socialist La Vanguardia published many articles not only to announce those political meetings but also to inform about them once they had been performed. Those articles frequently reported passages of the speeches, provided details about the events and made evaluation comments. These controversies have been studied in some historical researches; in this paper we assume a discourse analysis approach, particularly from a glotopolitical perspective, to study the articles both papers published on the controversies. Two research objectives guide this survey: on the one hand, we aim to understand why this practice emerged in these counter hegemonic organizations and what benefits they consider they can gain from it, considering it was not usual in those times political struggles. On the other hand, we will analyse controversy practices as glotopolitical interventions each of these groups made. To answer these introductory questions, we intend to define the genre considering its historical environment and the hegemony and subalternity dialectics in which controversies were developed. To address the second objective, we focus outstanding features of its formal plurisemiotic configuration in the light of discoursive ideologies that guided its development and its relationship with the political value each group searched in or attributed to this practice.
publisher Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Letras
publishDate 2019
url https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/heterotopias/article/view/27335
work_keys_str_mv AT distefanomariana publiccontroversiesbetweenanarchistsandsocialistsintheearlytwentiethcenturyacounterhegemonicdiscursivepractice
AT distefanomariana lascontroversiaspublicasentreanarquistasysocialistasaprincipiosdelsigloxxunapracticadiscursivacontrahegemonica
first_indexed 2024-09-03T21:09:20Z
last_indexed 2024-09-03T21:09:20Z
_version_ 1809210681879166976
spelling I10-R333-article-273352020-02-27T15:31:21Z Public controversies between anarchists and socialists in the early twentieth century: a counterhegemonic discursive practice Las controversias públicas entre anarquistas y socialistas a principios del siglo XX: una práctica discursiva contrahegemónica Di Stéfano, Mariana public political controversies glotopolitics dialectic rhetorics controversias públicas políticas glotopolítica dialéctica retórica Public controversies between socialists and anarchists became an usual practice for both groups; in 1902, when these controversies are relatively settled and regulated, they were frequently performed in theatres located in different Argentinian cities and they managed to attract large audiences. The anarchist journal La Protesta Humana and the socialist La Vanguardia published many articles not only to announce those political meetings but also to inform about them once they had been performed. Those articles frequently reported passages of the speeches, provided details about the events and made evaluation comments. These controversies have been studied in some historical researches; in this paper we assume a discourse analysis approach, particularly from a glotopolitical perspective, to study the articles both papers published on the controversies. Two research objectives guide this survey: on the one hand, we aim to understand why this practice emerged in these counter hegemonic organizations and what benefits they consider they can gain from it, considering it was not usual in those times political struggles. On the other hand, we will analyse controversy practices as glotopolitical interventions each of these groups made. To answer these introductory questions, we intend to define the genre considering its historical environment and the hegemony and subalternity dialectics in which controversies were developed. To address the second objective, we focus outstanding features of its formal plurisemiotic configuration in the light of discoursive ideologies that guided its development and its relationship with the political value each group searched in or attributed to this practice. Las controversias públicas entre socialistas y anarquistas llegan a constituirse como una práctica frecuente para ambos grupos; en el año 1902, en que se encuentran ya relativamente estabilizadas y reguladas, se realizaron con frecuencia en importantes teatros de distintas ciudades del país y lograron una amplia convocatoria de público. Los periódicos La Protesta Humana, del anarquismo, y La Vanguardia, del socialismo, destinaron numerosas notas tanto para publicitar los encuentros como para informar sobre estos, una vez ocurridos, en las que con frecuencia reprodujeron fragmentos de las intervenciones, dieron detalles de cómo transcurrió el evento e hicieron comentarios valorativos. Estas controversias han sido objeto de algunos estudios históricos; en este trabajo proponemos una aproximación desde los estudios del discurso, particularmente desde un enfoque glotopolítico, a partir del análisis de las notas de ambos periódicos sobre las controversias. Orientan este trabajo dos grandes objetivos: por un lado, comprender qué explica la emergencia de esta práctica en el seno de estas organizaciones contestatarias y qué rédito consideran unos y otros que extraen de ella, teniendo en cuenta que no tiene presencia en el universo de la lucha política de la época. Por otro lado, analizarla en tanto intervención glotopolítica de cada uno de los grupos. Para responder las preguntas iniciales, buscamos precisar el género contemplando su contexto histórico y las relaciones de hegemonía y de subalternidad en las que se inscribe. Para abordar el segundo objetivo, observamos rasgos salientes de su configuración formal plurisemiótica a la luz de las ideologías discursivas que orientaron su resolución y su relación con el valor político atribuido o buscado por cada grupo. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Letras 2019-12-31 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/heterotopias/article/view/27335 Heterotopías; Vol. 2 No. 4 (2019): “Languages and dissenting speeches”; 1-24 Heterotopías; Vol. 2 Núm. 4 (2019): “Lenguas y discursos disidentes”; 1-24 2618-2726 spa https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/heterotopias/article/view/27335/28961

Ejemplares similares