Być za, a nawet przeciw: kultura logiczna, rodzaje trybów argumentacji w dyskursach politycznych oraz wiodąca rola potocznego pragmatyzmu

The content of the article is concentrated on the issues of eight model modes of argumentation in political discourses, focusing on the local dimension and emphasizing the pragmatic mode with the accompanying redundancy (redundancy of: message, data, styling), which – although is useful in everyday argumentation – if it is excessively expanded and in case of lack of relevance (i.e. adequacy and significance of the message) – may lead to the strengthening of the political cleavages ‘produced’ by the mechanism of schismogenesis assigned to the human race (and scientifically characterized by Gregory Bateson), creating differences between individuals, groups, societies (see Bateson, 1935, 1972). Thus, in conditions of impoverished civic culture, which can be observed, among others, in local Poland, the pragmatic mode in political argumentation may contribute more often to perpetuating divisions (sociopolitical cleavages) and relatively less often to creating premises for agreement. The author’s interpretation of William N. Dunn’s (see Dunn, 1994, 2012, 2017) model uses generalized conclusions from field research, which refer to, among others: to the influence of (formal and informal) normative contexts of political discourse operating at the local government level. The main line of argumentation refers to the main thesis stating the dominance of the pragmatic mode in political argumentation per se, while placing the proposed analysis in a micro-systemic (i.e. local- government) perspective and emphasizing the excessive exaggeration of the role of the above-mentioned redundancy in political messages, which is a premise for strengthening divisions between elites and citizens, as well as promoting visions proclaimed by leaders that differentiate the community. The title phrase “to be for and even against” is taken from an almost universally known quote, which will not be analyzed separately in the text. It is used in the title and introduction to the topic because this phrase accurately reflects the essence of the logical culture of political discourse, reduced to the ground floor and marked by redundancy, and the accompanying paradoxes in public relations.