|
However interesting and useful the 'idea of discourse' may be,
it is easy to imagine criticism that:-
· The use of discourse is only a more sophisticated form
of campaigning
· Or, that discourse is just another method of commentating
of current affairs
These criticisms could clearly have validity, so discourse analysis
faces a challenge of how it can become a 'full academic discipline'
- how can it inoculate itself in advance against these criticisms
?
For this reason Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been developed,
and in this section, I want to describe CDA as an academic discipline
which has developed a range of methods and techniques for working
on discourse - finding ways to disentangle the discourses and understand
the positions and levels taken up by authors.
In this section, I describe the core of CDA, and in section C,
I describe some of the major issues dealt with by CDA.
The Theoretical Grounding and Objectives of CDA
There is a 'theoretical burden' to CDA, as links have been built
between CDA and the other main bodies of theory types found in the
social sciences. It also has clear connections to the main schools
of philosophical thought.
There is no one central theory used by CDA. There is a range and
variety, and many authors use a technique of moving from theory
to discourse, then back to theory :-
· Epistemology. Models of human perception in general, its
limits, conditions and contingencies, and particularly scientific
perception
· General Social Theories ('Grand Theories'). These try to
conceptualise relations between social structure and social action,
thus linking macro- and micro-sociological phenomena. Within this,
o some are more structuralist (often top-down explanations = structure
-> action),
o others are more individualist (often bottom-up explanations =
action -> structure)
o more modern theories imply that there is some kind of circularity
between structure and action
· Middle range theories. These may focus on:-
o Specific social phenomena (conflict, cognition, social networks)
o Or specific sub-systems of society (economy, politics, religion)
· Micro-sociological Theories. Try to explain social interaction,
e.g. the double contingency problem (A and B have never met, how
will they relate, what will they do if they meet), or the reconstruction
of everyday procedures, whereby members of society create their
own social order. ……. As such, it relates to ethno-methodology.
· Socio-psychological theories. These prefer causal explanations
compared to micro-sociology, and concentrate on the social conditions
of cognition and emotion
· Discourse Theories. Conceptualise discourse as a social
phenomenon, and try to explain its genesis and structure
· Linguistic Theories. Explain the patterns specific to language
systems and verbal communication - theories of argumentation, grammar,
rhetoric, etc (based on Meyer, 2001, pp 19- 20)
All of the above theory types can be found in CDA, so at first
it seems that what unifies CDA is the specifics of research questions
rather than theoretical positioning.
An important point about CDA is that the range of theories possible
in CDA helps it to claim that it is interdisciplinary, and by using
methods based on several of these theory groups, a triangulation
process can be carried out which helps to validate the results achieved.
Fairclough and Kress have stated that a full account of discourse
would involve a theorisation and description of both the
1. social processes and structures which give rise to the production
of a text,
2. and of the social structures and processes within which individuals
or groups as social historical subjects, create meaning in their
interaction with texts. (derived from Wodak, 2001, p. 3)
Clearly, to achieve a complete description of BOTH the circumstances
surrounding the creating of a text AND the circumstances surrounding
the reader/researcher is almost impossible to envisage. In addition
to this, there is the challenge of carrying out a FULL analysis
of a text. In the example of my text, I could exhaust the reader
with a 1000 pages of full analysis of my 240-word text. To describe
the circumstance of the creation of the text and my own circumstance
as researcher would also be major works. At the other extreme, I
could simply review it or make comments. This might entertain or
influence, but would not ultimately have any validity. Inevitably,
I am compromising by selecting the most interesting parts of the
'full analysis', giving some information of the circumstances, and
hoping to avoid mere commentary.
The Attitude of CDA
Some of the leading exponents of CDA deal with the critical dilemma
by taking an explicit position.
For example, van Dijk asks: "What is CDA ?"
· It is a (critical) perspective on doing scholarship
· It is discourse analysis 'with an attitude'
· It focuses on social problems and especially on the role
of discourse on the production and reproduction of power abuse and
domination
· It tries to do this in a way consistent with the best interests
of the dominated groups
· It combines the (old and pompous) 'solidarity with the
oppressed' with an attitude of opposition and dissent against those
who abuse text and talk in order to establish, confirm or legitimate
their abuse of power
· In CDA, theory formation, description, problem formulation
and applications are closely intertwined and mutually inspiring
(van Dijk, 2001, p. 96)
He emphasises the need for a broad, diverse, problem-oriented CDA
Meyer describes the differences between CDA and other research
methods as
· The nature of the problems tackled is different - other
methods do not always determine their interest in advance
· CDA asks different research questions (regarding power,
for example )
· CDA scholars play an advocatory role for groups who suffer
from social discrimination
· The line drawn between social research and political argumentation
is sometimes crossed
CDA endeavours to make explicit power relations which are frequently
hidden, and thereby to derive results of practical relevance (Meyer,
2001, p. 15)
And Jaeger adds - "Nevertheless strict objectivity cannot
be achieved by means of discourse analysis, for each technology
of research must itself be examined as potentially embedding the
beliefs and ideologies of the analysts and thereby prejudicing the
analysis towards the analysts preconceptions" (Jaeger, 2001,
p. 33-4)
In general, it can be said that CDA strives for self-awareness
in terms of:-
1. power relations, and the response of the researcher to power
situations
2. the researcher should study the way that discourse is used as
a tool of power
3. that generally, power relations in society can best be studied
from the side of the dis-empowered
4. despite all the efforts of the researcher, objectivity can never
be absolute, and is probably never achievable
5. that there should be awareness if the researcher crosses the
line between social research and political argumentation
Added to the enormous complexity of discourse itself, and the wide
range of social theories available, the quest for self awareness
can easily be forgotten, and this is also an essential aspect of
CDA
|
(0044)(0) 1372-749803