Lenguaje como estrategia de poder en las guerras civiles

Estrada, Fernando (2004): Lenguaje como estrategia de poder en las guerras civiles.

Abstract

In this paper I examine the paradoxical role of language in conflict situations. Support the war and negotiation belong to a game of "speech acts" structured by a double metonymic and metaphorical relationship. That metaphorical relationship between both conceptualizes negotiation as a condensed analogy of war, metonymy exposed negotiation as its counterpart. That while veiled metaphor allows military aspects identify the statements and speeches of the armed actors, the metonymic relationship extends the argumentative function as one with the power play. Also argue that language can operate as an extended form of civil war or, on the contrary, as is desirable, can shape a political expression of it. What I think is not identical.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Language as power strategy in the civil wars
• Language: Spanish
• Keywords: Language, Strategic in Civil Wars, Rhetoric, Metaphor, Game Theory
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D74 - Conflict ; Conflict Resolution ; Alliances ; Revolutions; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information ; Mechanism Design; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D87 - Neuroeconomics; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology

References

Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, (Versión castellana: Modelos y metáforas, Madrid, Tecnos, 1966).

Castillo, María del Pilar y Salazar, Boris: “Jugando a la violencia en Colombia: el dilema de pagar o no pagar” en Cuadernos de Economía 25, Vol. XV, 1996. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional, pp. 185-197.

Echeverría, Javier. 1995. Cosmopolitas domésticos. XXIII Premio Anagrama de Ensayo, Barcelona, Anagrama, pp.68-75.

Estrada G, Fernando. 1999. “Metáforas del poder”. El Estado y la Fuerza. Bucaramanga, pp. 219-269.

Facounnier, G. and Turner, M. 1999. “Metonymy and conceptual integration”. In Panther and Radden (eds.), pp.77-90.

Facounnier, Gilles. 1999. Mappings in thought and language: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. 2000. Estrategias de Poder, Barcelona: Paidós Básica.

Gibbs, R.W. 1999. “Speaking and Thinking with metonymy”. In Panther and Radden (eds.), pp.61-76.

González, José María, Metáforas del poder, Madrid: Alianza Editorial, pp. 11-250.

K. Von Clausewitz, 1968. On War. Abrided edition, by A. Rapport. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books (first edition. 1832), (Versión castellana: De la Guerra, Madrid, Labor, 1984).

Kuhn, Thomas, 1982. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 128-148.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Chllenge to Wester Thought. New York. Basic Books.

Popper, K. 1984. La sociedad abierta y sus enemigos, Buenos Aires: Paidós Básica.

Schopenhauer, A. 1999. Dialéctica Erística, Madrid: Trotta.