Argumenter : convaincre, persuader, manipuler. Une lecture objective de l'influence

Résumé (en anglais)

An objective reading of the influence assumes an accent shifting in the analysis of the argumentative discourse. Instead of putting the emphasis on concepts such as to convince and to persuade, which are seen as two opposite argumentative strategies, this article intends to find out a common denominator for them, namely the effectiveness, as long as the argumentative discourse is inevitably oriented towards the result in the social practice whenever it addresses to reason or to feelings. This type of approach does not mean that an objective reading of the influence should not preserve the distinction between to convince-to argue, which is grounded on reason and to persuade-to argue, which is grounded on pathos as it sets the two argumentative acts against the arguer's logic of interests strictly on terms of argumentative effectiveness, somehow similarly to sophists' manner, namely without ethical or moral commitment. This presumes also an attitude change in relation to the truth, which is considered as a unique criterion of validity of an argument. The author puts forward as criterion of validity of the argumentative discourse the Meaning as a set of significances which are met in a value system. Therefore, acting according to these values means to go in a good direction, namely in the Horse Sense. However what is the guarantee that an argumentation goes in the horse sense as long as the same facts could be variously interpreted? How could one protect oneself against manipulation, namely against any wrong direction given to the argumentative discourse? These are the questions the author takes into consideration in order to find an answer. He analyses from the point of view of the result, three types of definitions: normative, oratorical and polemic. These definitions, which are present in the debate concerning the necessity and the lack of necessity that IMF allocates a loan for Romania, have been used by the defenders of the two opposite positions as strategies to influence public opinion.