Discourse Ks – Gonzaga Debate Institute 14


Alternative: Critical Discourse Analysis



Yüklə 202,64 Kb.
səhifə5/15
tarix09.08.2018
ölçüsü202,64 Kb.
#62191
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Generic

Alternative: Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discursive analysis is key to debunk the hidden meanings behind words


McGregor, Mount Saint Vincent University Department of Education Professor, 03*

(Sue, 2003, kappa omicron nu fórum, “Critical Discourse Analysis-- A Primer”, http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html, accessed 7-5-14, CLF)


The critical science approach holds that people need to think about improving their living conditions rather than accepting and coping with their present conditions. That improvement is contingent upon people being conscious of social realities that exploit or dominate them and then demanding liberation from these forces. A critical science perspective helps us gain: (a) personal freedom from internal constraints such as biases or lack of a skill or point of view and (b) social freedom from external constraints such as oppression, exclusion, and abuse of power relations (Gentzler, 1999; McGregor, 2003). This paper has illustrated that there is a method that can be applied to debunk the hidden ideological meanings behind the written and oral wordit is critical discourse analysis. CDA does not provide answers to the problems but does enable one to understand the conditions behind the specific problem—the deep, ideological roots of the issue (Palmquist, 1999). It can be carried out in various institutional settings or on various social, political, and critical issues by paying attention to the details of what social members actually say and do (van Dijk, 1999). Starting with the full text, working down to the individual word level, one can peel back the layers to reveal the “truth behind the regime”—the profoundly insidious, invisible power of the written and spoken word. 

Discursive violence is used to perpetuate the dominance of the elite over marginalized peoples


McGregor, Mount Saint Vincent University Department of Education Professor, 03*

(Sue, 2003, kappa omicron nu fórum, “Critical Discourse Analysis-- A Primer”, http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html, accessed 7-5-14, CLF)


One of the central attributes of dominant discourse is its power to interpret conditions, issues, and events in favor of the elite. The discourse of the marginalized is seen as a threat to the propaganda efforts of the elite. It is for this reason that home economists must engage in critical discourse analysis—to make the voice of the marginalized legitimate and heard and to take the voice of those in power into question to reveal hidden agendas and motives that serve self-interests, maintain superiority, and ensure others’ subjugation (Henry & Tator, 2002). CDA helps make clear the connections between the use of language and the exercise of power (Thompson, 2002).

Understanding the Theory of Critical Discourse Analysis



Discourse refers to expressing oneself using words. Discourses are ubiquitous ways of knowing, valuing, and experiencing the world. Discourses can be used for an assertion of power and knowledge, and they can be used for resistance and critique. Discourses are used in everyday contexts for building power and knowledge, for regulation and normalization, for the development of new knowledge and power relations, and for hegemony (excess influence or authority of one nation over another). Given the power of the written and spoken word, CDA is necessary for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text (Luke, 1997). CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed within specific social, economic, political, and historical contexts (Van Dijk, 1988). It tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favor their interests. By unmasking such practices, CDA scholars aim to support the victims of such oppression and encourage them to resist and transform their lives (Foucault, 2000), the central tenet of critical theory and the critical science approach (McGregor, 2003).

Stemming from Habermas’s (1973) critical theory, CDA aims to help the analyst understand social problems that are mediated by mainstream ideology and power relationships, all perpetuated by the use of written texts in our daily and professional lives. The objective of CDA is to uncover the ideological assumptions that are hidden in the words of our written text or oral speech in order to resist and overcome various forms of power over or to gain an appreciation that we are exercising "power over,” unbeknownst to us (Fairclough, 1989)1. CDA aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. It strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to power imbalances, social inequities, non-democratic practices, and other injustices in  hopes of spurring people to corrective actions (Fairclough, 1993).

There are three central tenets of CDA (Fairclough, 2000). Discourse is shaped and constrained by (a) social structure (class, status, age, ethnic identity, and gender) and by (b) culture. Home economics, comprising members from across the social structure (but mainly white, middle class, women), has a professional culture, which shapes and constrains its discourse. What we say as home economists, is shaped by our professional culture, socialization, and member profile (social structure). (c) Discourse (the words and language we use) helps shape and constrain our identities, relationships, and systems of knowledge and beliefs. As home economists, our identities, the nature of our social relationships, and our knowledge and belief systems are shaped and constrained by the language and words espoused by us and by others. 



Discourse Shapes Reality

Discourse shapes reality— Language creates our perception of the world around us


McGregor, Mount Saint Vincent University Department of Education Professor, 03*

(Sue, 2003, kappa omicron nu fórum, “Critical Discourse Analysis-- A Primer”, http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html, accessed 7-5-14, CLF)


In plain language, CDA makes visible the way in which institutions and their discourse shape us! FSC professionals work in, and for, institutions including business, government, the media, education, health, and social welfare institutions. Most especially, we work with and for the family as a social institution. All of this discourse shapes us, and we shape it. CD analysts ask the question, “How are we made in our culture?” (Foucault, 2000). As family and consumer scientists, we can approach this two ways: (a) how are we made family and consumer scientists/home economists and (b) how do FCS/home economists affect the way others are made in the culture? CD analysts assume that discourses articulate ideological interests, social formations, and movements within a field (Luke, 1997). It stands to reason, then, that discourse within the field of family and consumer sciences is indicative of prevailing ideologies in the profession. As we examine what our language reflects about our community’s practice and beliefs, we inevitably discover how and why these practices and beliefs are (re)produced, resisted, changed, and transformed (Remlinger, 2002). Brown (1995, 1993) discussed the notion of whether home economics is a community of practice, raised some doubts about this, and then challenged us to critically examine the concepts, beliefs, and values that guide our action (1993, p.193).

Indeed, our journals, newsletters, e-lists, online material, editorials, conference proceedings, textbooks, book reviews, and lecture material constitute an order of discourse, a network of diverse genres and discourse styles (Fairclough, 2002) that make up the FCS social practice. What would we find if we examined the words flowing from this home economics professional order of discourse? What would we find about our professional mission, values, beliefs, and philosophy relative to power relations, social conditions, equity, and justice as these impact family well-being? Are we really part of the solution, or as Brown (1993) so uncomfortably alleged, part of the problem? The power of the meanings attached to our, and others’, words merits our analysis of our genre. Fairclough (1995) and Wadok and Ludwig (1999) caution that different readers may interpret text differently. At this stage of the game, this difference can be our strength to help us expose the deep meanings behind our words, codified practices, and habits of language. Remember—our words are never neutral. Our words convey how we see ourselves as a profession, our identity, knowledge, values, beliefs, and our truthsour discourse permeates everything we do. We know ourselves (and others know us) by the positions we construe through our particular discourses and the kinds of practices they support (Rupert, 1997). 




Matters for policymaking




Language matters and has power— we must monitor our language to prevent oppression


Shepherd, Lecturer in International Relations and International Law, 2010

(Laura, March 2010, International Committee Red Cross, “Women, armed conflict and language – Gender, violence and discourse”, http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-877-shepherd.pdf, date accessed 7-4-14, CLF)


In our personal lives, we know that language matters, that words are constitutive of reality. There are words that have been excised from our vocabularies, deemed too damaging to use. There are forbidden words that children whisper with guilty glee. There are words we use daily that would be meaningless to our grandparents. Moreover, the cadence and content of our communications vary by context; words that are suitable for the boardroom may not be appropriate for the bedroom or the bar. In our personal lives, we admit that words have power, and in Formal politics we do the same. It is not such a stretch to admit the same in our Professional lives. I am not claiming that all analysis must be discourse-theoretical – must take language seriously – to be policy-relevant, for that would clearly be nonsense. I am, however, claiming that post-structural theories of language have much to offer policy makers and practitioners, and arguing that in order to understand how best to implement policy we first need to understand ‘how’ a policy means, not just what it means. That is, we must understand a policy before we can implement it. This article argues that we need to engage critically with how that understanding is mediated through and facilitated by our ideas about the world we live in. If we are to avoid unconsciously reproducing the different forms of oppression and exclusion that different forms of policy seek to overcome, we need to take seriously Jacques Derrida’s suggestion that ‘il n’y a pas de hors-texte’.5

Discourse analysis is necessary to productive policy discussions


Shepherd, Lecturer in International Relations and International Law, 2010

(Laura, March 2010, International Committee Red Cross, “Women, armed conflict and language – Gender, violence and discourse”, http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-877-shepherd.pdf, date accessed 7-4-14, CLF)



Policy documents are, among other things, discursive practices, and can be read in this way, with a view to asking what is in some ways the most directly politicaland policy-relevant – question: how is it that the reality we take for granted, which includes disparities of power and multiple forms of (sometimes violent) oppression, come to be accepted as such? This special issue of the Review draws attention to many ways in which gendered logics produce (in)equality and order social life; through the analysis of policy governing women and war, the present essay seeks to contribute a discourse-theoretical perspective in keeping with this theme. Crucially, the distinctively poststructural form of policy analysis I outline here highlights the ambiguities and tensions inherent in any policy document and offers usable strategies for negotiating these, mediating the implementation of policy in a productive and potentially transformative way. The essay is divided into three substantive sections. In the first section, I map out a poststructural approach to discourse that, I argue, facilitates particular kinds of analysis of policy documents and other relevant political materials. The second section then provides an illustrative account of the theory presented, through the analysis of Chapter 5.10 of the United Nations Integrated Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Standards,8 which is entitled ‘Women, gender and DDR’. In the final section I offer some concluding remarks and suggest some potentially fruitful avenues for future research.

A2: Words are Neutral

Words are never neutral—Discouse Matters


McGregor, Mount Saint Vincent University Department of Education Professor, 03*

(Sue, 2003, kappa omicron nu fórum, “Critical Discourse Analysis-- A Primer”, http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html, accessed 7-5-14, CLF)


Discourse analysis challenges us to move from seeing language as abstract to seeing our words as having meaning in a particular historical, social, and political condition. Even more significant, our words (written or oral) are used to convey a broad sense of meanings and the meaning we convey with those words is identified by our immediate social, political, and historical conditions. Our words are never neutral (Fiske, 1994)! This is a powerful insight for home economists and family and consumer scientists (We could have a whole discussion about the meaning that these two labels convey!). We should never again speak, or read/hear others’ words, without being conscious of the underlying meaning of the words. Our words are politicized, even if we are not aware of it, because they carry the power that reflects the interests of those who speak. Opinion leaders, courts, government, editors, even family and consumer scientists, play a crucial role in shaping issues and in setting the boundaries of legitimate discourse (what is talked about and how) (Henry & Tator, 2002). The words of those in power are taken as "self-evident truths" and the words of those not in power are dismissed as irrelevant, inappropriate, or without substance (van Dijk, 2000). 

*Last Date Cited



AT: Apology

Apologies mean nothing when there’s a ballot on the line—2012 Republican Primary proves


Kornacki, Salon writer, 11

[Steve, 5-10-11, Salon, “When it’s an apology, and when it’s a pander,” http://www.salon.com/2011/05/10/apologize_pawlenty/, accessed 7-5-14, PAC]

It’s hardly unusual for a politician to offer an apology. Usually it’s for some kind of personal shortcoming or for a “gaffe” of some sort — an intemperate comment, maybe, or an off-color joke uttered into an open mic. It’s also not unheard of to hear genuine contrition for being on the wrong side of an issue (even if this most often comes from retired pols who are suddenly mindful of the damage that a career full of pandering might do to their place in history).

But Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who is trying very, very hard to win the Republican presidential nomination, reminded us last week of another type of politician’s remorse: the pander disguised as an apology.

I was wrong, it was a mistake, and I’m sorry,” Pawlenty said during a debate last Thursday. He was talking about his previous insistence that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem worth tackling with cap-and-trade legislation. When Pawlenty first articulated this view a few years ago, it was a thoroughly mainstream sentiment, even within the Republican Party. Now it isn’t. Why? Because with a Democrat in the White House, the GOP base now demands reflexive, unyielding opposition to any and all “Democratic” policies. Obama and his fellow Democrats support cap-and-trade — therefore, the Republican base hates it. (This phenomenon is hardly new.) Thus, Pawlenty is now furiously apologizing for admitting that global warming is a serious, man-made problem that demands action.



What’s more, he’s betting that his willingness to say “I’m sorry” will provide a favorable contrast to Mitt Romney, who has thus far refused to apologize to Republican primary voters for the universal healthcare law he signed in Massachusetts five years ago — which included an “individual mandate.” Instead, Romney has framed the Bay State’s program as an “experiment” that produced some good results and some bad.


Yüklə 202,64 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə