從Aristotle三種言說種類看社會爭議事件：以國民黨和民進黨臉書萊豬貼文為例

Looking at Social Controversial Events from Aristotle’s Three Kinds of Discourse: The Kuomintang and Democratic Progressive Party’s Facebook Posts about Ractopamine Pigs as An Example

社會爭議論述背後總包含說服，其語藝論辯品質正可為社會爭議事件帶來民主的反思與評估。本研究利用Aristotle三種言說種類對國民黨與民進黨臉書的萊豬貼文進行梳理分析，發現兩黨面對社會爭議多著手於究責與定罪，或反指控與自我辯護，容易落入根據過去的事件在評價之法庭性言說，不像審議性言說提出深思熟慮的論辯去影響未來決策，亦非強調共同理解之儀式性言說。當法庭性言說充斥在社群媒體的政治貼文時，不利於政黨之間的公共溝通，這現象值得反思。本研究期許從社會爭議事件過程的語藝拆解與解析，重新找到民主社會中公共論述的核心價值與新判準。

 

There is always a persuasive component behind discussions related to social disputes, where rhetoric strategies are used intentionally and unintentionally. The quality of rhetoric debate can bring reflection and evaluation of democratic society. This study uses Aristotle’s three kinds of discourse to analyze the Facebook posts from the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party regarding the Ractopamine pig’s import controversy. We found that when facing social disputes, the two parties mostly use forensic discourse based on the evaluation of past events, focusing on accountability and conviction or counter-accusation and self-defense. They rarely use deliberative discourse, which proposes thoughtful arguments to influence future decisions, or epideictic discourse, which emphasizes shared understanding. When political posts on social media are flooded with forensic discourse, it is inconducive to public communication, and this phenomenon is worth reflecting on. This study hopes to rediscover the core values and new criteria of public discourse in a democratic society through the dissection of rhetoric and analysis of the process of social disputes.