frederic.cossutta@wanadoo.fr

In the Western tradition, since the Platonic mention of « the soul’s dialogue with itself », which process of internalization corresponds to the external dimension of controversy? This question should allow us to decide whether these two dimensions are to be opposed or if, on the contrary, their proximity must be emphasized.

The viewpoint chosen to determine which internal instances of subjectivity are called upon during the exploration of the conflict with the self is neither that of the philosophy of consciousness nor that of psychoanalysis, but rather that of pragmatics. The internal cleavages will be studied from the perspective of the realm of discourse. The kinds of discursive phenomena here discussed include addresses to oneself, as in Marcus Aurelius’ Thoughts for myself , the use of a first-person meditative form as in Descartes’ Meditations, the call to a divine voice in a Soliloquy as with Saint Augustine or Malebranche’s Christian Meditations. All constitute as many stagings of an interiority that must fight with itself and consider « itself as someone else », to quote Ricoeur.

This intimate internal polemicity — a conflict of conscience and tearing apart of the subject — is not, however, independent from a general conception of intersubjectivity nor of the social practices which are linked to it. Although it is seemingly built from a monological standpoint, this pluralization of inner voices is not secluded from exteriority, since it negates its own closure upon the inner self and borrows from the external dimension its dialogical nature, in so far as it is published and meant for a reader.

It would thus be interesting, regarding the authors mentioned, to compare their actual practice of public controversy, with their intimate and polemical writings and their theories of subjectivity. We would then see, in symmetry with the process of interiorization, how a controversial movement of exteriorization which uses the appropriate discursive modes allowing it to objectify its plural instances develops: dialogue form, correspondence, narrative and fiction, multiple characters, use of pseudonyms. It will then appear that the « subjective » aspects of external controversy must not be seen as obstacles to the objective development of « ideas ». They must not either be interpreted in terms of a simple psychology or of a rituality which sociology or anthropology could account for. They are set on the coordinates of a schema of intersubjectivity which is built as much from the outside as from the inside and which is the objects of transaction in the course of the interplay : personal implications, misunderstandings, innuendoes, unfounded accusations, imputations or ad hominem arguments are not the contingent « precipitates » resulting from the clash of two personalities anchored in their biographical identities. They are the evidence of a discursive co-construction of controversial intersubjectivity, which, in order to objectify itself, must produce a co-subject in the text.