Indagine pragmatica dei conflitti nel De beneficiis di Seneca

The analysis on the practice of beneficia in De beneficiis takes, as a starting point, the conflictual dynamics that the beneficentia starts and which is the main focus of this research. The examination of conflictual frames has been considered necessary to give relevance to one aspect that, more than others, is very important for the development of the reasoning in the book, and to point out the basic concepts of Seneca's reorganization on beneficentia. Description and critics of contemporary communication about beneficia other than the provisions and codification of new rules are the ways in which Seneca chooses to censure the traditional model of beneficentia. Since Seneca focuses on dysfunctional communication with the intent of restoring social relationships it was useful to consider both the pragmatic of communication and microsociology methodologies, in order to more effectively study Seneca’s book. The importance given to the conflict theme means reflecting on dans/accipiens relationship in its dynamical, communicative and social aspects. The philosopher from Cordoba makes a complex review of ethical and social profile of both actors in order to accomplish his cultural and ethical plan to renovate and heal the societas, which means changing their competences and expectations by revisiting their relational dynamics. The reason why Seneca wants to change the traditional practice is due to the universal vitium of ingratitude which represents the origin of stasis in the process of bene facere and of decay in society. Ingratitude is not interpreted as culpa of the second actor, but it is viewed as a negative result of the interactive process, so it is the phenomenon which explains the need to reflect on beneficentia's dysfuncionality, in particular about the first actor's responsibility. The pragmatic analysis has allowed us to notice wrong giving modality creates, in both verbal and non-verbal aspects, a short circuit with the message that the gesture of the gift carries, so ingratitude represents, in the interactive lecture of beneficium, the natural consequence of dans's dysfunctional behavior. The neglegentia through which the giver acts, which appears in inappropriate communicative behaviors, is a sign of his nescientia and of his inability to fulfill his role's duties and the relational commitments that beneficial interaction, beyond material transaction, requires. On one hand beneficentia is the mechanism which allows the building of social relationships, on the other hand the “escaping strategies”, with the intent to elude or ignore accipiens's requests, facilitate their disruption and obfuscate the benefit's categories with economic and non-ethical practices. So the social conflict is seen with a new “punctuation” which assigns the responsibility of ingratitude to the dans and encourages him to concentrate on his competence and behavior, producing as well a change in the whole interactive system. One of the principal reasons of dans/accipiens conflict is the metamorphic and slack statute of the creditum and beneficium categories which create a dangerous proximity between the two practices. In fact, since the purpose of both of these models is the circulation of goods, they cause, in the second actor, a consciousness of debitum and a sense of obligation of restitution. The problem is solved by giving up on the logic of computatio, that comes from the bene ponere idea and implies the contrastive binomial damnum/lucrum, and by the adoption of a non-utilitarian concept of beneficium, being useful for the realization of both actors. In this perspective the dans, in spite of accipiens's ingratitude, is ethically obliged to fulfill his role by giving other gifts (pertinacia in dandum which is sign of bona voluntas) and thank to the reiteration of the gift he can aim to make the accipiens grateful and to begin the reciprocity mechanism. In this work it's proven that the dans's behavior can pragmatically affect the accipiens negatively, being the cause of his ingratitude, or positively, inducing him to a grateful feedback. Dans/accipiens relationship is set in the roman scheme of contentio honestissima whose purpose is not aequare but vincere the beneficium given by the dans, so the interaction between the actors can continue and can be placed in a ethical perspective. In fact, surpassing the benefactor, by giving him a plus, means putting an end to the complementary of relationship and overturning the roles. This corrective mechanism doesn't allow the punctuation of the temporal continuum in the relationship and, simultaneously, it prevents role's crystallization and brings symmetry to the system. In this way, Seneca not only puts the relationship over res exchange, but conceives beneficentia as a virtuous path that finds its realization in the ethical symmetry in order to achieve sapientia. Because of the centrality of communication as a motor of the reorganization plan on the beneficial system, I considered useful to examine analytically all the communicative behaviors that function like “relational traps” which put the accipiens in a subordinate and dependent position and cause conflictual frames and destabilize the system. I compared the representation of these behaviors to those in other Latin texts in order to observe the differences between Seneca's and the more common representation and to gain the innovation in De beneficiis. The communicative behaviors criticized on Seneca's work are: beneficia exprobrare, beneficia exigere, beneficia repetere e de beneficio queri. The comparison with other texts showed that these behaviors are commonly considered illicit by roman ethical standard if they are acted out in friendship frames. So the main purpose of Seneca's book is to make the beneficentia frame similar to the friendship frame, with substantial consequences on the social level: dans/accipiens relationship is necessarily based on symmetry and it is exposed to an ethical code that distinguishes it from other exchange practices, like creditum and feneratio, with economic and utilitarian finality, and to recover the deepest and healthy sense of the word communitas.