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.
"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." Yes, me too, and why I like micro-level approaches to this work like CA.
ReplyDeleteI would love to draw upon your expertise with post-structural theory as I think having a good initial grasp of this will be helpful to everyone in the class.
"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." Great questions and reflections; hmm...I wonder if this connects to the discussion of how or whether we can actually CHANGE discourses - that once they are sedimented they become quite difficult to change even though technically they are only in the "here and now."
Data sources sound fine to me. Only difference may be that you are looking at a monologue (speech) instead of interactional data, but I think that's okay given your area of interest and focus. Looking forward to seeing where you take it!