- Email: [email protected]
Rituali di degradazione: Anatomia del processo Cusani
ELSEVIER
Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847-850
Book review Pier Paolo Giglioli, Sandra Cavicchioli and Giolo Fele, Rituali di degradazione: Anatomia del processo Cusani. Bologna: il Mulino, 1997. pp. 244, 28.000 liras. ISBN 88-15-05713-7. Reviewed by Augusto Gnisci, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', Via dei Marsi, 78, 1-00185 Rome, Italy. The book Rituali di degradazione: Anatomia del processo Cusani (Rituals of degradation: Anatomy of the criminal trial against Cusani) by Pier Paolo Giglioli, Sandra Cavicchioli and Giolo Fele applies three levels of analysis - sociological, semiotic, and conversational - to the criminal trial against Sergio Cusani, an entrepreneur of Montedison (Italy's largest chemical group), charged with forging the budget and illegal financing of political parties. This is probably the most famous criminal process in Italian history, defined by the prosecutor as the 'father of all trials'. It was held between July '93 and April '94, a period of political and social transformation in Italy. Although the case was perpetrated only against defendant Sergio Cusani, almost all leaders of the political and financial class of the so-called First Republic were involved (and later on many were sentenced in a second criminal trial). Because the media were paying considerable attention to the trial and a substantial part of the trial was broadcasted on a public channel (RAI3), it became a 'moral' process against the powerful and corrupted members of the ruling class. In fact, most of them were called to testify as defendants of associated crime in Cusani's trial. Coherent with the authors' aim, the quoted empirical and theoretical literature is wide and interdisciplinary ranging from Goffman's (1974) sociological approach and ethnomethodology, through Linell's (1990) analysis of interactional asymmetry in formal and informal settings, to conversational and discourse analysis. However, they have not cited the basic book by O'Barr (1982), who is often considered a major in applying the ethnographic field to language and law. The book comprises three different essays, one for each author. The three essays aim at studying the same object but with different, interrelated perspectives ranging from macro- to micro-sociological approaches. Each contribution contains interesting material and useful analytic insights into this criminal trial. Particular attention has been paid to reconstructing the social context in which the legal 'drama' of Cusani's trial proceeded. The authors' shared assumption is that legal professionals of justice, in particular the popular prosecutor, Antonio Di Pietro, as well as members of the social and sym0378-2166/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0378-2166(98)00087-3
848
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847--850
bolic machinery of media and public opinion, aimed to degrade the political actors involved in the trial, which thus ritually represented the fall of the First Republic. The point of convergence in the three essays lies in the emphasis on the communicative strategies of the participants. The strategies of both legal professionals and witnesses are addressed simultaneously to different recipients: the proximal interactant, the silent Court, the media, and the audience (the 'people'). Hence, the actors do not only negotiate the meanings of their words in the courtroom or their legal engagement, but also negotiate their social image and their political and moral identity. Taken from this perspective, the communicative strategies become paramount, since by using these strategies the legal professionals try to discredit and denigrate the witnesses, whereas the witnesses try to preserve or rebuild their status and prestige. From this point of departure, Pier Paolo Giglioli bases his analysis on a wider sociological background than the other authors. He regards the criminal trial as a symbolic ceremony in which the different communicative strategies of the participants express, support, and negotiate the recurrent 'frames' used by the actors to defend their own positions. Following and extending the approach of Bateson (1955) and Goffman (1974), each frame is meant as an organizational principle that provides meaning to an event and is generally expressed by the use of metaphors, slogans, or other symbolic images. Thus, along with its descriptive aspects, the use of a frame implies a normative evaluation of the events. The interpretative frame 'Mani Pulite' (Clean Hands) - the name given to the whole inquiry - for example, represents the prosecutor as a moral agent who, in his actions, is driven by principles of honesty, integrity, democracy, and respect of the law, in contrast to the corruption and illegality of the system. This frame was consistently used by the prosecutor during the examinations, was amplified by the media, and welcomed by the public opinion. In contrast to this highly effective frame, the politicians of the First Republic usually used different kinds of frames, depending on the particular position of the witness. For purposes of this review, I will mention only two of them. According to the 'Democracy takes money' frame, brilliantly enacted by one of the most powerful politicians of the '80s, the secretary of Socialistic Party, Bettino Craxi, the witness has to plead guilty. But, rather than repenting, he is proud of his political responsibility. According to this frame, the law against the illegal financing of political parties is simply wrong, and to violate the law is a necessity for a politician, since defending democracy takes money. Thus, it is a common practice among all the parties to receive money and know how the system works. This allows the particular witness to admit his responsibility but at the same time to share and broaden his responsibility with all others in the system. By contrast, the 'I did not know' frame, used essentially by the secretary of Christian Democracy Party, Amaldo Forlani, is the frame of absolute denial of responsibility. The witness denied that there was an illegal financing system. Anyway, if this was the case, it did not involve his party. And, if his party was involved, it was not under his political responsibility. And, if this was the case, the administrative secretary was to be blamed, who, indeed, never informed him about the illegal transitions.
Book review / Journal of Pragrnatics 31 (1999) 847--850
849
The consequences of adopting this frame were quite disastrous. Contradicted by evidence and others' testimonies, Forlani fell into disfavour with the Court as well as with the public opinion. His public image was completely destroyed. Although disgraced in a similar manner in the public's eye, the ex-Prime Minister, Bettino Craxi, was successful in yielding a collaborative image of a person who wants, knows and can provide information. In contrast, Arnaldo Forlani's attempt to set up a self-image of a person who would but doesn't know and, thus, cannot provide information, completely failed, as Cavicchioli successfully explains. Choosing one frame or another is, therefore, a matter of choosing a general accusatory or defending line. This line underlies the speakers' behaviour in each moment of the examination and allows them to account for the reported events. This orientation is pursued by different communicative strategies of negotiation, a topic deepened by the other authors. As Sandra Cavicchioli explains in her essay, 'Processes in TV', which is mostly interested in the transformation accomplished by the media from a criminal to a political and moral trial (semiotic level), there are two kinds of such strategies. The argumentative strategies are mainly focused on the construction of the contents of talk (event-centered), whereas the persuasive strategies aim to build up a credible image of the speaker involved in interaction during the examination (relationshipcentered). This double strategic organization is taken up and worked out in detail by the essay of Giolo Fele on the discursive strategies in the courtroom. Fele emphasises a conversational level of analysis. From this perspective, the trial is considered as a particular institutional setting in which the interactive and the normative structure of asymmetric communication is identified. The analysis of the competitive exchanges between legal professionals and witnesses is well documented by the illustration of 49 fragments of conversation selected from the examinations. With them the author is able to show that the main strategic work of the speaker is devoted to constraining and manipulating the talk of the other interactant by using a coercive format of questions, elaborated responses, manipulation of pauses and silence, and interruptions and overlapping. The book attempts to develop a theoretical frame to interpret this particular criminal trial rather than to provide information about the methodological details of the analysis. This results in a rich and communicative presentation. However, the book does not seem to provide a methodological basis which can be used in different legal contexts, nor does it avoid some flaws and inaccuracies. For example, only a note in the third chapter informs the reader about the corpus of data on which the analysis is based, and of this, only Craxi's, Forlani's, and Bossi's examinations were transcribed following Conversation Analysis conventions. Furthermore, from journalistic sources, it is known that TV transmitted about one quarter of the Cusani criminal trial differently than what is reported by the authors of the book. On the whole, the main merit of the book, which is readable and engaging, consists in showing how three different perspectives can be usefully integrated in order to enlighten and deepen the analysis of the same social event.
850
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847-850
References Bateson, Gregory, 1955. A theory of play and phantasy. In: Approaches to the study of human personality, 39-51. American Psychiatric Association, Psychiatric Research Reports, II. Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Linell, Per, 1990. The power of dialogue dynamics. In: I. Markov~ and K. Foppa, eds., The dynamics of dialogue, 147-77. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. O'Barr, William, 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Augusto Gnisci is currently affiliated with the Department of Developmental and Social Psychology at the University of Rome 'La Sapienza', where he received his Ph,D. in 1997. His doctoral dissertation 'The criminal trial as a conversational event: The process against Cusani' won the award of the Associazione ltaliana di Psicologia-Fondazione Rosselli for the best dissertation in psychology in Italy in 1997. In recent years, he has published numerous articles on legal argumentation and the psychology of courtroom discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847-850
Book review Pier Paolo Giglioli, Sandra Cavicchioli and Giolo Fele, Rituali di degradazione: Anatomia del processo Cusani. Bologna: il Mulino, 1997. pp. 244, 28.000 liras. ISBN 88-15-05713-7. Reviewed by Augusto Gnisci, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', Via dei Marsi, 78, 1-00185 Rome, Italy. The book Rituali di degradazione: Anatomia del processo Cusani (Rituals of degradation: Anatomy of the criminal trial against Cusani) by Pier Paolo Giglioli, Sandra Cavicchioli and Giolo Fele applies three levels of analysis - sociological, semiotic, and conversational - to the criminal trial against Sergio Cusani, an entrepreneur of Montedison (Italy's largest chemical group), charged with forging the budget and illegal financing of political parties. This is probably the most famous criminal process in Italian history, defined by the prosecutor as the 'father of all trials'. It was held between July '93 and April '94, a period of political and social transformation in Italy. Although the case was perpetrated only against defendant Sergio Cusani, almost all leaders of the political and financial class of the so-called First Republic were involved (and later on many were sentenced in a second criminal trial). Because the media were paying considerable attention to the trial and a substantial part of the trial was broadcasted on a public channel (RAI3), it became a 'moral' process against the powerful and corrupted members of the ruling class. In fact, most of them were called to testify as defendants of associated crime in Cusani's trial. Coherent with the authors' aim, the quoted empirical and theoretical literature is wide and interdisciplinary ranging from Goffman's (1974) sociological approach and ethnomethodology, through Linell's (1990) analysis of interactional asymmetry in formal and informal settings, to conversational and discourse analysis. However, they have not cited the basic book by O'Barr (1982), who is often considered a major in applying the ethnographic field to language and law. The book comprises three different essays, one for each author. The three essays aim at studying the same object but with different, interrelated perspectives ranging from macro- to micro-sociological approaches. Each contribution contains interesting material and useful analytic insights into this criminal trial. Particular attention has been paid to reconstructing the social context in which the legal 'drama' of Cusani's trial proceeded. The authors' shared assumption is that legal professionals of justice, in particular the popular prosecutor, Antonio Di Pietro, as well as members of the social and sym0378-2166/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0378-2166(98)00087-3
848
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847--850
bolic machinery of media and public opinion, aimed to degrade the political actors involved in the trial, which thus ritually represented the fall of the First Republic. The point of convergence in the three essays lies in the emphasis on the communicative strategies of the participants. The strategies of both legal professionals and witnesses are addressed simultaneously to different recipients: the proximal interactant, the silent Court, the media, and the audience (the 'people'). Hence, the actors do not only negotiate the meanings of their words in the courtroom or their legal engagement, but also negotiate their social image and their political and moral identity. Taken from this perspective, the communicative strategies become paramount, since by using these strategies the legal professionals try to discredit and denigrate the witnesses, whereas the witnesses try to preserve or rebuild their status and prestige. From this point of departure, Pier Paolo Giglioli bases his analysis on a wider sociological background than the other authors. He regards the criminal trial as a symbolic ceremony in which the different communicative strategies of the participants express, support, and negotiate the recurrent 'frames' used by the actors to defend their own positions. Following and extending the approach of Bateson (1955) and Goffman (1974), each frame is meant as an organizational principle that provides meaning to an event and is generally expressed by the use of metaphors, slogans, or other symbolic images. Thus, along with its descriptive aspects, the use of a frame implies a normative evaluation of the events. The interpretative frame 'Mani Pulite' (Clean Hands) - the name given to the whole inquiry - for example, represents the prosecutor as a moral agent who, in his actions, is driven by principles of honesty, integrity, democracy, and respect of the law, in contrast to the corruption and illegality of the system. This frame was consistently used by the prosecutor during the examinations, was amplified by the media, and welcomed by the public opinion. In contrast to this highly effective frame, the politicians of the First Republic usually used different kinds of frames, depending on the particular position of the witness. For purposes of this review, I will mention only two of them. According to the 'Democracy takes money' frame, brilliantly enacted by one of the most powerful politicians of the '80s, the secretary of Socialistic Party, Bettino Craxi, the witness has to plead guilty. But, rather than repenting, he is proud of his political responsibility. According to this frame, the law against the illegal financing of political parties is simply wrong, and to violate the law is a necessity for a politician, since defending democracy takes money. Thus, it is a common practice among all the parties to receive money and know how the system works. This allows the particular witness to admit his responsibility but at the same time to share and broaden his responsibility with all others in the system. By contrast, the 'I did not know' frame, used essentially by the secretary of Christian Democracy Party, Amaldo Forlani, is the frame of absolute denial of responsibility. The witness denied that there was an illegal financing system. Anyway, if this was the case, it did not involve his party. And, if his party was involved, it was not under his political responsibility. And, if this was the case, the administrative secretary was to be blamed, who, indeed, never informed him about the illegal transitions.
Book review / Journal of Pragrnatics 31 (1999) 847--850
849
The consequences of adopting this frame were quite disastrous. Contradicted by evidence and others' testimonies, Forlani fell into disfavour with the Court as well as with the public opinion. His public image was completely destroyed. Although disgraced in a similar manner in the public's eye, the ex-Prime Minister, Bettino Craxi, was successful in yielding a collaborative image of a person who wants, knows and can provide information. In contrast, Arnaldo Forlani's attempt to set up a self-image of a person who would but doesn't know and, thus, cannot provide information, completely failed, as Cavicchioli successfully explains. Choosing one frame or another is, therefore, a matter of choosing a general accusatory or defending line. This line underlies the speakers' behaviour in each moment of the examination and allows them to account for the reported events. This orientation is pursued by different communicative strategies of negotiation, a topic deepened by the other authors. As Sandra Cavicchioli explains in her essay, 'Processes in TV', which is mostly interested in the transformation accomplished by the media from a criminal to a political and moral trial (semiotic level), there are two kinds of such strategies. The argumentative strategies are mainly focused on the construction of the contents of talk (event-centered), whereas the persuasive strategies aim to build up a credible image of the speaker involved in interaction during the examination (relationshipcentered). This double strategic organization is taken up and worked out in detail by the essay of Giolo Fele on the discursive strategies in the courtroom. Fele emphasises a conversational level of analysis. From this perspective, the trial is considered as a particular institutional setting in which the interactive and the normative structure of asymmetric communication is identified. The analysis of the competitive exchanges between legal professionals and witnesses is well documented by the illustration of 49 fragments of conversation selected from the examinations. With them the author is able to show that the main strategic work of the speaker is devoted to constraining and manipulating the talk of the other interactant by using a coercive format of questions, elaborated responses, manipulation of pauses and silence, and interruptions and overlapping. The book attempts to develop a theoretical frame to interpret this particular criminal trial rather than to provide information about the methodological details of the analysis. This results in a rich and communicative presentation. However, the book does not seem to provide a methodological basis which can be used in different legal contexts, nor does it avoid some flaws and inaccuracies. For example, only a note in the third chapter informs the reader about the corpus of data on which the analysis is based, and of this, only Craxi's, Forlani's, and Bossi's examinations were transcribed following Conversation Analysis conventions. Furthermore, from journalistic sources, it is known that TV transmitted about one quarter of the Cusani criminal trial differently than what is reported by the authors of the book. On the whole, the main merit of the book, which is readable and engaging, consists in showing how three different perspectives can be usefully integrated in order to enlighten and deepen the analysis of the same social event.
850
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 847-850
References Bateson, Gregory, 1955. A theory of play and phantasy. In: Approaches to the study of human personality, 39-51. American Psychiatric Association, Psychiatric Research Reports, II. Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Linell, Per, 1990. The power of dialogue dynamics. In: I. Markov~ and K. Foppa, eds., The dynamics of dialogue, 147-77. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. O'Barr, William, 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Augusto Gnisci is currently affiliated with the Department of Developmental and Social Psychology at the University of Rome 'La Sapienza', where he received his Ph,D. in 1997. His doctoral dissertation 'The criminal trial as a conversational event: The process against Cusani' won the award of the Associazione ltaliana di Psicologia-Fondazione Rosselli for the best dissertation in psychology in Italy in 1997. In recent years, he has published numerous articles on legal argumentation and the psychology of courtroom discourse.