Anything but a snitch: an examination of the relationship between psychology, politics and social networks based on the Juan Requesens case

Abstract

Our purpose was to show the linguistic and discursive resources used by Alberto Barradas (a well-known Venezuelan psychologist) in his pronouncements through social networks to favor the deputy Juan Requesens (of his same political tendency). Using his professional authority and public credibility, the psychologist exempts the parliamentarian from criminal liability for his alleged participation in an attack against the president of Venezuela and, in a broader sense, promotes the rejection towards the government of Nicolás Maduro. A qualitative study from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis was conducted. Theoretically, the emphasis was on the enunciative and pragma-grammatical approach. Therefore, we characterize the context in which Barradas communicates his messages, we delve into the meaning and significance of his discourse, we take into account the interactive components of the enunciation, and then we go deeper in the lexical resources of linguistic argumentation that our speaker deploys. In the study of these last aspects, the theory of argumentation in language has also been used. Finally, we make reference to the oral and gestural features of the psychologist's intervention. We conclude that Barradas's discourse is a hybrid or interdiscourse that combines the political with the professional. Given its nuances, in this discursive operation we notice an action that violates the ethical duties of the professional of psychology.