A CORPORIFICAÇÃO TENSIVA DA POLÊMICA: UMA PROPOSTA TIPOLÓGICA DE ENUNCIADOS SOBRE A PANDEMIA DE COVID-19

Abstract

Between March 11, 2020, to May 5, 2023, the Covid-19 pandemic was marked by a dispute between those who respected and those who rejected the guidelines advocated by most health experts. Aware of this situation, we thought about this controversy semiotically to defend the thesis that it can be perceived as a discursive body (Discini, 2015), to the point of presenting a style (Discini, 2015). We propose, in an innovative way, that style can also be perceived in the comparison between texts from different speakers, and we ask ourselves: how does the ‘embodiment’ of the polemic develop? Inspired by this question, our overall objective is to propose a typology of polemics based on the analysis of a corpus formed by texts of various genres selected for having points in common that point to the notions of totus (a principle that refers to the totality of manifestations of a given actor/enunciative body) and unus (which indicates a unit). The texts date mainly from 2020 and 2021 (the height of the pandemic period, when clashes were exacerbated by measures such as the closure of commercial and religious establishments) and are taken into account because they express conflicts that emerged in various sectors of society and because, in our view, a synthesis of elements that can be ordered both as graphs and tension networks and as samples of disturbance in/of the I-Other relationship. This disturbance, as verified in the analyses, is the crucial element that (re)constructs the polemic, graded from the perception of phoria and its increases or decreases of more or less to formulate diagrams, graphs, and tensive networks. The corpus includes: a statement by evangelical bishop Edir Macedo posted on social media and a celebration led by Catholic auxiliary bishop Nivaldo dos Santos Ferreira (both from March 2020, with comments on the coronavirus); institutional propaganda from the government of Mato Grosso do Sul, whose name “Coronavírus: a balada pode esperar” (“Coronavirus: the party can wait,” from January 2021), about social distancing; a news report on food delivery to homeless people in Belém (capital of Pará, in the Northern of Brazil); the production of a booklet on health care in Dourados (state of Mato Grosso do Sul, MS, Midwest of Brazil) printed in the Guarani language; complaint about racist comments regarding indigenous people having preference for the vaccine; an event in which a customer at an ice cream shop in Campinas (in São Paulo, Southeast of Brazil) reacts angrily when approached for improperly wearing a mask in the establishment; an extension project to welcome immigrants formulated by a university in Campo Grande (MS). Our specific objectives include: identify out how the speakers involved have their ethe constituted in this process and how they used rhetorical arguments (such as figures of speech) to gain public support; how the attacks from each side highlighted affection as a persuasive element in the eyes of the public; and how this dispute between disparate points of view influenced the aspectualization of the actors involved. Thus, we need to account for the continuous space between the opposing terms indicated in the original semiotic square of Discursive Semiotics. To this end, we propose the assumptions of Tensive Semiotics and Sociosemiotics as a theoretical basis, as we believe that these currents add other operators to the analyses (such as gradual relations and regimes of interaction and meaning, respectively). We also mobilize concepts such as “an almost presence” (a tool for measuring body density), ethos (the image of the speaker before the listener), and pathos (the emotion that influences the listener). Methodologically, following the model of networks and tensional diagrams, elements are graded according to similarities and/or enunciative distinctions that configure a polemical discursive body. Understanding the polemic during the pandemic helps us to better interpret our own actions in society. Therefore, we believe that our analyses contribute to efforts to achieve scientific understanding (specifically in semiotics) of dissent and contribute to the resumption of rhetoric in semiotic research.