OJSS Home

2024 - Volume 8 - Number 1

Bullfighting Prohibition, a Controversial Decision: Tauromaquia Mexicana’s Arguments Analysis

Alma Jiménez Aguilar * ORCID: 0009-0004-0128-7178
University of Guanajuato, Division of Social Sciences and Humanities, Guanajuato, MEXICO

Open Journal for Sociological Studies, 2024, 8(1), 39-56 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojss.0801.04039j
Received: 11 June 2024 ▪ Revised: 20 August 2024 ▪ Accepted: 11 September 2024

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF)

ABSTRACT:
Bullfighting prohibition has been a highly controversial topic in Mexico since 1967. The first attempt to ban these activities in this country was done in 1867, by former president Benito Juárez (Vázquez Mantecón, 2013). While there are still people who support bullfighting events, some authors agree that nowadays, even in the countries where these events take place, citizens mostly disapprove of these practices (Cordeiro Rodrigues & Achino, 2017; Flores Mercado, 2023; Perales & Thouverez, 2014). However, legislation in many countries has been going back and forth regarding the prohibition of this type of event. Just to mention two, according to Badorrey Martín (2009) the first ban was a canonical prohibition by a Pope in 1567, which had to be revoked after it was not complied with. As for the civil law, Badorrey Martín (2009) acknowledges the Spanish king Carlos III to be the first leader who tried to ban bullfighting in 1787. Using Toulmin’s argumentation model and Van Dijk’s manipulation theory, this article analyses the arguments given by Tauromaquia Mexicana A.C. in favor of bullfighting. The findings suggest that while the document titled Argumentos a favor de la tauromaquia (Arguments in favor of bullfighting) presents incomplete arguments, there is a clear tendency to manipulation in them.

KEY WORDS: bullfighting, matador, Toulmin’s model, critical discourse analysis, Mexico, tauromaquia.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Alma Jiménez Aguilar, University of Guanajuato, Division of Social Sciences and Humanities, Guanajuato, MEXICO.

REFERENCES:

Badorrey Martín, B. (2009). Principales prohibiciones canónicas y civiles de las corridas de toros. Provincia, (22), 107-146. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55513213006.

Cohen, E. (2014). Bullfighting and tourism. Tourism Analysis, 19, 545-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354214X14116690097738

Collins dictionary (n.d.). bullfight in American English. In Collins dictionary. Retrieved 22 May 2024, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bullfight.

Cordeiro-Rodrigues, L., & Achino, E. (2017). A case study on moral disengagement and rationalization in the context of Portuguese bullfighting. Polish Sociological Review, 3(r99), 315-327. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=579789.

Cordero del Campillo, M. (26th October 2005). Sobre las relaciones del hombre con los animales. Lección inaugural del Curso 2005-2006 del Programa Interuniversitario de la Experiencia, pronunciada en el Aula San Isidoro bajo los auspicios de la Junta de Castilla y León y el Rectorado de la Universidad de León. https://historiadelaveterinaria.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Relaciones-hombre-y-animales.pdf.

Eggins, S. (2005). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Flores Mercado, G. (2023). Bullfights, tourism and intangible cultural heritage in Mexico: A dissonant heritage. In A. López López, G. F. Quintero Venegas & C. Kline (Eds.), Tourism, heritage and commodification of non-human animals, a post-humanist reflection (pp. 85-98). CAB International.

Khoirunisa, A., & Indah, R. N. (2017). Argumentative statements in the 2016 presidential debates of the U.S: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 4(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v4i2.347

Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zacharides, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93, 383-397. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z.

Ortiz-Millán, G. (2014). Ética para matador: Savater, los toros y la ética. Tópicos, (46), 205-236. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0188-66492014000100008&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt.

Perales, C., & Thouverez, L. (2014). Building Spanish and Catalan identity in the debate on banning bullfighting. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 6(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs.6.1.55_1

Quintero Venegas, G. J., & López López, A. (2018). Tauromaquia y turismo oscuro en México: las corridas de toros como prácticas no éticas. Teoría y Práxis. Turismo, negocios, recursos naturales, (212), 197-228. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12249/1325.

Ryder, R. D. (2017). Speciesism, pianism and happiness. A morality for the twenty-first century. Societas.

Sáez, P. (1998). Sobre la fiesta de los toros en el mundo Romano. Revista de Estudios Taurinos, 8, 51-68. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5095980.pdf.

Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176

Taylor, N., & Signal, T. (2011). Theorizing animals. Re-thinking humanimal relations. Brill.

Toulmin, S. (2014). Toulmin method. Toulmin and his Model, 7.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Vázquez Mantecón, M. C. (2013). ¡ Toros sí!,¡ Toros no! del tiempo cuando Benito Juárez prohibió las corridas de toros. Historia Mexicana, 63(1), 171-203. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23608660.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(3), 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250