Giovanni Scarafile

Inspired by Marcelo Dascal's theory of controversies, this volume includes studies in the theory of controversies, studies of the history of controversy forms and their evolution, and case-studies of particular historical and current controversies. The purpose of this volume is to identify a taxonomy of controversies and also to sense a line of development for the phenomenon of controversies itself. At the same time, we want to ask ourselves about the impact and the spread of controversies in the contemporary world, eminently intended as a heuristic element facilitating knowledge. For all these reasons, the fundamental aim of the volume is to provide the reader with a selection of current theoretical and practical perspectives on controversies, and to offer a broad picture of the complex range of definitions, meanings and practices connected to them.

Inspired by Marcelo Dascal's theory of controversies, this volume includes studies in the theory of controversies, studies of the history of controversy forms and their evolution, and case-studies of particular historical and current controversies. The purpose of this volume is to identify a taxonomy of controversies and also to sense a line of development for the phenomenon of controversies itself. At the same time, we want to ask ourselves about the impact and the spread of controversies in the contemporary world, eminently intended as a heuristic element facilitating knowledge. For all these reasons, the fundamental aim of the volume is to provide the reader with a selection of current theoretical and practical perspectives on controversies, and to offer a broad picture of the complex range of definitions, meanings and practices connected to them.

Within the traditional conception of communication, the subjects involved in the communicative process are divided into emitter and receiver of the message, analogous to the mechanism of transmission and regulation between machines, which is called cybernetics, to which the communicative process between living beings is assimilated (Habermas & McCarthy, 1984; Shannon & Weaver, 1998; Wiener, 2019). According to this theory, the person capable of communicating can only be equated to a target, to be considered in the unidirectional transmission of information. Consequently, “good communication” is considered exclusively from an economic and utilitarian point of view, so that “good” communication is that which effectively transmits a message and obtains the maximum result with the minimum of effort.

The relationship between science and democracy has become a much-debated issue. In recent years, we have even seen an exponential growth in literature on the subject. No doubt, the interest has partly been justified by the concern of public opinion over the technological repercussions of scientific research. Moreover, there are scientific theories that, if they were accepted, would allegedly imply the adoption of policies that have wide social consequences, as well as a rethinking of deeply-rooted habits on the part of the citizens. These considerations alone allow us to understand the reasons for the interest in the, at times troublesome, relationships between science and public opinion which characterize democratic societies.

Nowadays, the forms assumed by knowledge indicate an unhinging of traditional structures conceived on the model of discipline. Consequently, what was once strictly disciplinary becomes interdisciplinary, what was homogeneous becomes heterogeneous and what was hierarchical becomes heterarchical. When we look for a matrix of interdisciplinarity, that is to say, a primary basis or an essential dimension of all the complex phenomena we are surrounded by, we see the need to break with the disciplinary self-restraint in which, often completely inadvertently, many of us lock ourselves up, remaining anchored to our own competences, ignoring what goes beyond our own sphere of reference. However, interdisciplinarity is still a vague concept and a much demanding practice. It presupposes the continuous search for convergent theoretical perspectives and methodologies, and the definition of common spaces and languages, as well as a true dialogical and open mind of several scholars. From ethics to science, from communication to medicine, from climate change to human evolution the volume Controversies and Interdisciplinarity offers a series of original insights beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model.

Considering Jaspers’studies on the paradoxical nature of conflicts, I reflect on the capacity of communicative forms to provide an objective representation. In particular, my attention is devoted to the predicative intentionality of images, namely the set of modalities by which an image represents. The level of accuracy of images is relevant also for a specific meaning of the ethics of communication, regarding the truthfulness of what is represented in a photograph. After an historical reconstruction of the several ways in which representation has been themed, I consider as a case study some pictures of allegedly hysterical patients, taken from the archive of the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. My thesis is that, for an adequate analysis of images, a pragmatic interpretation is necessary, able to integrate the hermeneutical approach.

Tensegrity, multivocity and the ethics of images When transposed to the field of philosophy, the notion of tensegrity can become the matrix to justify an approach to reality, based on the contextual action of several factors. This specificity is shown with reference to the photographs of patients allegedly hysterical, photographed at the end of the nineteenth century in the Hospital Salpêtrière in Paris. The ethics of images is anchored in this possibility. In fact, it is not indifferent with respect to both the modalities in which a knowledge can be correctly configured, and with respect to the role of the subject-spectator in such an operation.

My paper is related to applied ethics with special reference to the ethics of communication. The task of this discipline is to defend otherness in the various contexts where it exists. The departure point for my paper is the observation that the physician–patient relationship, instead of being the place of therapeutic alliance, is increasingly becoming a source of conflict, as is shown by the statistics on legal actions between doctors and patients, lack of communication skills identified amongst patients, and cases of burnout amongst doctors. This situation calls on ethics to take two steps simultaneously. Firstly, it must not forego the duty of indicating the rules. Secondly, it must be capable of suggesting directions where those same rules can be applied. Succeeding in this task is decisive not only in domains where the ethical approach may be welcomed, but also for ethics as such, otherwise destined to be a disembodied specialization.

This volume features more than 25 papers that were presented at the 2014 Conference of the International Association for the Study of Controversies, IASC, held at the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. It looks at conflict and conflict resolution from diverse perspectives, including philosophy, psychology, law, and history. Coverage explores the paradox of conflict and examines how discord, whether large or small, international or internal, can be both a source of chaos as well as a foundation for unity, a limitation of potential as well as an entryway to a greater depth of living. Inside, readers will discover thought-provoking answers to such questions as: What are the conditions to ensure that a conflict can be converted into cooperation? If the conflict between interests can be solved by a compromise, what happens when a conflict involves non-negotiable values​​? In the management of a conflict, what role is played by argumentation? What are the latest perspectives in conflict management? How does the theory of controversies allows us to recognize and resolve conflicts? By the end of the book, readers will have a better understanding of how conflict can be transcended and how it's possible to redefine the conflicting situation so that what seemed incompatible and locked may, in fact, open a new perspective.