Jorgensen and Phillips, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method

Ugh, Jorgenson and Phillips' Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method "Chapter 2" was exhausting. I like to think that I can handle theory reading, but this chapter went slowly for me. The layered vocabulary terms turned into a slurry, and I ended up having to slow down my reading to make sure I understood each term, individually, to understand the greater formation of the theoretical framework. After last week's (slight) debacle of reading Mercer as a rhetorician and not as...whatever his intended target audience member, I thought to temper my bias to understand Jorgenson and Phillips' stance. I know, I know--we can't believe in discourse analysis if we think we can "turn off" our bias--so maybe I should say that I wanted to give them as much space as possible for them to explain their answers, and then overlay it with my own paradigm. But just when I think that's a viable option, "Chapter 2" adds another authorial complexity by summarizing Laclau and Mouffe's critical stance, so I'm not sure whose bias was more impeding progress: Jorgenson and Phillips or mine? But I digress...

Chapter 2 begins by situating Laclau and Mouffe's theory as one that "combin[es] and modif[ies] two major theoretical traditions, Marxism and structuralism," but then classifies their theory as a "single poststructuralist theory in which the whole field is understood as a web of processes in which meaning is created" (25). I've work regularly with poststructural theories--especially deconstruction--so I was happy to be on familiar ground. However, the terminology of these theoretical frames did make me question from what disciplinary tradition were Laclau and Mouffe coming, since it could imply how the theoretical structure is actually situated. A friend of my was joking how all disciplines uses the word "discourse," but we all have our own definition of what that actually means; and we haven't even begun to problematize "analysis." Nevertheless, from my quick internet search, it looks like Laclau and Mouffe are coming from a political science background. So it wasn't surprising to see the commentary on social structure and hegemony. Personally, I really really enjoyed the detailed commentary on words as part of the construction of truths since it acts as the most molecular entity we can use to investigate discursive fields.

Laclau and Mouffe use the post-structural axiom of a temporary closure of meaning to open varieties of understanding. So just because someone says something, doesn't mean it is applicable (ie. the example of "football" in medical history). It is the articulation of signs which builds truths, rather than build rhetorical fallacies. So at this point, I start to question the conceptual idea of truth, and moreover, the subjects who are involved in the articulated exchange. We have a model in rhetoric called "the rhetorical situation," which arranges the rhetor, the audience, and the message upon a contextual field. But the presence of truth, or maybe it's actually power, (and Foucault, regardless of terminology) enter the situation to participate in the articulation. I think a discussion of this topic needs to be approached because the term(s) bring into a sense of time to the situation. If discursive moments are unbounded by a past or future, and only exist in the "now" or "present," how can we claim any social impact? More generally, how can we date or mark the beginning and/or end of a discursive moment? I need to think more about this, but it felt like the commentary allows discursivity to be a "now" moments, when it really may not be. I see this problem materializing in literary analysis, where we are told to write about the text in the present, but how do we deal with a narration that happened or will happen.

Fin. I'm going to stop here because this either makes sense or I've reinvented the wheel.

Long term assignments:

For my mini-literature review, I'd like to look for articles detailing issues of national identity. I've already found some great articles, so I'm excited about this topic.

For my data source, I'm interested in using Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo "To the Muslim World" as an institutional discourse moment (4 June 2009). I'm not sure if that's too dated. For a textual base discourse, I'd like to use newspaper articles from the New York Times on the speech. If that proves to be limited, I might broaden it to issues of national identity, especially as it pertains to Muslims.

Introducing: Bushra, Mercer, and Rhetoric

My name is Bushra Malaibari and I'm a PhD student in the Rhetoric, Writing, and Linguistics (RWL) division in the English Department. I came to UTK with a BA in Chemistry and Literature (Honors) and an MA in Written Communications (Teaching First Year Composition in Higher Ed). I usually teach composition classes, and my scholarly work is focused in rhetoric and rhetorical theory. Even if people don't know the scholarly definition of  "rhetoric," most people can correctly assume that it has to do with communicating. So it's not surprising that I like words enough to want to make a professional career of it; and I especially like words that are spoken (even though written words are also pretty great). Nevertheless, one of my favorite reactions I get after introducing myself to non-rhetoricians is people thinking I know everything about grammar and public speaking. Nothing could be further from the truth! Pursuing scholarly endeavors in rhetoric is fascinating to me because it is all about varieties of exchange. Every person has their own style to present their ideas, but somehow large groups of people can get together and have a conversation. So instead of thinking that I'm a rhetorician because I know absolutely how to use words, I like to think that I'm a rhetorician because I know that there is no one way to trade words. And I'm definitely ready to hear how others use, exchange, and understand words.

With that short introduction, I have to say that Mercer's Words & Mind: How We Use Language to Think Together was not necessarily my ideal introduction to language exchange because it mitigates the rhetorics of languages that catalyzes its users to action. Mercer relied heavily on linguistic theories to justify his take on language. But linguistics--or at least some disciplines within linguistics--can diminish the telos of language. He explains his exigence for this text on language at the end of first chapter: "there is something of special important that language enables us to do, which although vital for our everyday lives, is rarely held up for special consideration in research on language and thinking. It is that language provides us with a means for thinking together, for jointly creating knowledge and understanding" (14-15, original emphasis). My poor, little heart skipped a beat at this claim because it's the field of rhetoric that observes the combustion of language and thinking to create knowledge and understanding.

Moreover, the conceptual introduction of "rhetoric" is not until chapter 4 (chapter 4!!), where it is limited to archaic and pop-culture definitions. First, Mercer uses an extremely abbreviated definition of rhetoric as "persuasive language" and rounds it out with "persuasion and argument as inherently dubious or aberrant activities" (73). Surely, this definition isn't out-and-out wrong, but he conflates canonical texts with contemporary society and ignores 20th century work on rhetoric, which makes me sad. I have to include that Aristotle's definition ("persuasion") is not that truncated, but it also includes pages of commentary afterwards on the moral fiber of the rhetor. Aristotle focuses his definitions on people who are engaged in truth. And it is within this motivation for exchanges of "truths" that persuasion occurs since truths are subjective. So while I love the conceptual idea that I can call liars and conmen "bad rhetors," it is within the 20th century that rhetoric and rhetorical theorist start consider the implications of communicative exchanges based on dogma, tyranny, and other nefarious activities that conflict with other people's truths.

But this is not to say that Mercer's text is without merit: there are explanations and examples of some dense concepts and topics given in a seemingly casual way. The development of issues on language practices allows readers to quickly engage in the text, without getting overwhelmed by the topics. (This book would have been profoundly helpful in keeping terms clear in my mind in previous classes.) And the book's organization was nicely arranged to first set the stage of language exchanges, and then investigate those concepts within micro to macro spaces, without apparent redundancy or repetition. It definitely works as an introduction to language practices for qualitative researchers. 

Mercer, Neil. Words & Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2000.