The ethics of the dispute. A filmographic analysis of postmarital litigation

Authors

  • María L. Christiansen Universidad de Guanajuato

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31056/2250.5415.v12.n1.37378

Keywords:

Litigation, Postmaritality, Epistemicide, Argumental vice, Allegation, Alienating ecuation

Abstract

As a narrative art and focused on the human condition, cinema recreates (and, at the same time, interrogates) the intricate ways of facing conflict in social life. In this regard, the cinematographic experience can serve as a means of problematizing the ethical implications that derive from a certain style of conversation, discussion and dispute in different areas, including that of the intimate sphere. The heartbreaking drama of postmarital litigation is, in this sense, a revealing theme of the fatal intersection of the private and the public. Oscar Noah Baumbach’s film, Marriage History, exhibits, through the big screen, the complex constitution of a highly expert-cratic alienating equation that ends up colonizing a couple’s decisions about the custody of their child. In this article, I will try to show that the discussions between the couple are permeated by an epistemicidal ethos that traces the legal use of the allegation made by their respective lawyers. Within this framework, arguments impregnated with epistemic vices are raised, with eminently devaluing effects. In light of certain reciprocal positions, the members of the couple (Nicole and Charlie) are encouraged to retell the story of their marriage in ways that legitimize the interests and expectations of the divorce scene. The metaphor of the discussion as a war constrains his explanatory schemes, to the point of turning the former spouse into a staunch enemy. The present filmographic analysis is intended to show the potential of cinema to insightfully pose the philosophical question of disagreement and epistemic autonomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Christiansen, M. (2017). “Si quieres saber del agua, no le preguntes al pez”. Epistemología de segundo orden en el estudio de la violencia. EIDOS Revista de Filosofía, 26, 93-116.

Christiansen, M. (2020). Parasitismo argumental. El punto muerto de la deliberación. Oxímora. Revista internacional de ética y política, 16 , 50-62. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/oximora/article/view/29689/30722

Díaz, M. (2017). Racismo epistemológico y occidentalocentrismo: apuntes para una descolonización de la tradición hegemónica del conocimiento. Revista de Epistemología y Ciencias Humanas, 9, 1-18.

Efran, J. y Lukens, M. (1994). Lenguaje, estructura y cambio. Gedisa

Gergen, K. (1996). Realidades y relaciones. aproximaciones a la construcción social. Paidós Ibérica.

Giuliani, M. (2006). Terapia ipertestuale: nuove metafore postmoderne per la clinica sistemica. Terapia Familiare, (82).

Giuliani, M (2016), Corpi che parlano. Psicoterapia e metáfora, Durango Edizioni.

Krippendorff, K. (1991). The Power of Communication and the Communication of Power; Toward an Emancipatory Theory of Communication. Communication, 12, 175-196.

Krippendorff, K. (1997). Principales metáforas de la comunicación y algunas reflexiones constructivistas acerca de su utilización. En Pakman, M. (1997) Construcciones de la Experiencia Humana vol. II. GEDISA.

Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live. University of Ch. Press.

Linares, J. L. (comp.) (2015). Prácticas Alienadoras familiares. El “síndrome de Alienación Parental Reformulado”. GEDISA.

Mount, S. (2010). Constitutional topic: due process. Recuperado de www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html

Nardone, G. (2006). Corrígeme si me equivoco. Barcelona: Herder.

Pereda, C. (1994). Vértigos argumentales. Una ética de la disputa. Barcelona: Anthropos & UAM-Iztapalapa.

Pereda, C. (1996). ¿Qué es un buen argumento? Theoria. Segunda Época, 11(25), San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco, Pp. 7-20.

Pereda, C. (1999). Crítica de la razón arrogante. México: Taurus-Alfaguara.

Santos, B. y Meneses, M. (2014) Epistemologías del Sur. Perspectivas. Madrid: Akal.

Wittgenstsein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Nueva York: Macmillan.

Published

2022-04-20

How to Cite

Christiansen, M. L. (2022). The ethics of the dispute. A filmographic analysis of postmarital litigation. Ética Y Cine Journal, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.31056/2250.5415.v12.n1.37378