Hate rhetoric vs trust rhetoric in contemporary public discourse

Abstract

Modern public discourse is so closely related to power that we can talk about the power of discourse. The value-normative basis of public discourse in most modern societies is human rights and fundamental freedoms. This leads to a high level of not only discursive diversity, but also communicative aggression, one of the most dangerous manifestations of which is the rhetoric of hatred. Although hatred rhetoric in certain communicative contexts and situations can perform useful functions based on violence, it hinders the achievement of such ideals of public discourse as the public good and justice. For this reason, in most states, the use of hate speech in public discourse is prohibited or restricted. However, the state, as a rule, finds itself in a difficult situation of a compromise between freedom of speech and social equality. On the one hand, it should ensure freedom of speech, especially in political debate; on the other hand, the state has a duty to protect discriminated and stigmatized groups. It is extremely difficult to find such a compromise using exclusively legal mechanisms, therefore, other strategies are required to squeeze out the rhetoric of hatred from public space. One of these strategies is the expanded reproduction of social trust, the accumulation of social capital, entailing a natural transition from the rhetoric of hatred to the rhetoric of trust. It is hardly possible to make such a transition without conflict, therefore, the use of compromise and consensus mechanisms is required (compromise is preferable).