Ethos, persona e autorità

Abstract

What is ethos and which role does it play in argumentation? Beyond the relevant connections between ethos and logos (ethos consists mainly of a discursive process constructing the person) and between ethos and pathos (ethos necessarily moves), the present contribution makes its start from the polysemic uses of the word ‘ethos’, which seems to have taken the place of the word ‘character’ in the lexicon of argumentation. We analyse ‘the person’ from three points of view: first of all, as a ‘source’ of discourse, ethos may play the role of a piece of evidence, persuasive as far as the person
appears to be expert and honest. So we study the distinction between technical ethos (a result of discourse) and extra-technical ethos (charisma). In the second place, the person is the ‘subject’ of discourse implying specific (topical) lines in discursive construction. Finally the person is the ‘addressee’ of discourse: auditory character determines premises and arguments. Critical models refuse authority as poisoning the well: we take up the challenge of thinking of argumentation as an activity ‘in context’ in order to determine the conditions of an acceptable use of authority. In order to do so, we shall speak against an invasive rhetoric ethos, i.e. against authoritarianism. Context makes us aware of specific social conditions, such as legal norms, which bind by the force of conventional institutions.