Discourse

Discourse (from Latin: discursus, lit. 'running to and from') generally denotes written and spoken communications, though its usage differs between various disciplines and approaches. For instance, in semantics and discourse analysis, it is a conceptual generalization of conversation within each modality and context of communication. Moreover, in regard to semantics, discourse is understood as the totality of codified language (i.e., vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, etc.[1]

For other uses, see Discourse (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Sociology
Main theories
Methods
Major subfields
Browse

In the work of philosopher Michel Foucault, and that of the social theoreticians Foucault inspired, discourse describes "an entity of sequences, of signs, in that they are", statements (French: énoncés) in conversation.[2] As discourse, a statement is not a unit of semiotic signs, but an abstract construct that allows such signs to assign meaning, thus conveying specific, repeatable communications to, between, and among objects, subjects, and statements.[2] As such, a discourse is composed of semiotic sequences (relations among signs that communicate meaning) between and among objects, subjects, and statements. In simple terms, Foucault's analysis of a discourse examines and determines the connections among language, as well as structure and agency. Foucault applied what he called "discursive formation" (French: formation discursive), a term that conceptually describes the regular communications (written and spoken) that produce such discourses (e.g. informal conversations), in his analyses of large bodies of knowledge, such as political economy and natural history.[3][4]

Definitions across disciplines

Various understandings of discourse can be seen as being in perpetual conflict with each other in time.[5] Hence, in the course of intellectual enquiry, discourse among researchers features questions of, and answers to, "What is ...?" and "What is not...?," conducted according to the meanings (i.e., denotation and connotation) of the concepts (statements) used in the given field of enquiry, such as anthropology, ethnography, sociology, cultural studies, and literary theory, as well as the philosophies of science and feminism.

Semantics and Discourse Analysis

In semantics, and the more-general discourse analysis, discourse is a conceptual generalization of conversation within each modality and context of communication. In this sense, the term is studied in corpus linguistics, the study of language expressed in corpora (samples) of "real world" text.

The study of semantics particularizes discourse as meaning the totality of codified language (i.e., vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, etc.[1] In this sense, along with that of Foucault's in the previous section, the analysis of a discourse examines and determines the connections among language and structure and agency.

Moreover, because a discourse is a body of text meant to communicate specific data, information, and knowledge, there exist internal relations in the content of a given discourse, as well as external relations among discourses. As such, a discourse does not exist per se (in itself), but is related to other discourses, by way of inter-discursive practices.

In formal semantics, discourse representation theory describes the formal semantics of a sentence using predicate logic.[6]

Social Sciences and Humanities

In the general humanities and social sciences, discourse describes a formal way of thinking that can be expressed through language. Discourse is a social boundary that defines what statements can be said about a topic. Many definitions of discourse are largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault. In sociology, discourse is defined as "any practice (found in a wide range of forms) by which individuals imbue reality with meaning."[7]

Political science sees discourse as closely linked to politics[8][9] and policy making.[10] Likewise, different theories among various disciplines understand discourse as linked to power and state, insofar as the control of discourses is understood as a hold on reality itself (e.g. if a state controls the media, they control the "truth"). In essence, discourse is inescapable, since any use of language will have an affect on individual perspectives. In other words, the chosen discourse provides the vocabulary, expressions, and, perhaps, even the style needed to communicate. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements, describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists."

In psychology, discourses are embedded in different rhetorical genres and meta-genres that constrain and enable them—language talking about language. This is exemplified in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which tells of the terms that have to be used in speaking about mental health, thereby mediating meanings and dictating practices of professionals in psychology and psychiatry.[11]

Modernism

Modern theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society.[12] Such theorists would be preoccupied with obtaining the "truth" and "reality," seeking to develop theories which contained certainty and predictability.[13] Modernist theorists therefore viewed discourse as being relative to talking or way of talking and understood discourse to be functional.[14] Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more "accurate" words to describe new discoveries, understandings, or areas of interest.[14] In modern times, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as "natural" products of common sense usage or progress.[14] Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom, and justice; however, this rhetoric masked substantive inequality and failed to account for differences, according to Regnier.[15]

Structuralism (Saussure & Lacan)

Structuralist theorists, such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Lacan, argue that all human actions and social formations are related to language and can be understood as systems of related elements.[16] This means that the "…individual elements of a system only have significance when considered in relation to the structure as a whole, and that structures are to be understood as self-contained, self-regulated, and self-transforming entities."[16]:17 In other words, it is the structure itself that determines the significance, meaning and function of the individual elements of a system. Structuralism has made an important contribution to our understanding of language and social systems.[17] Saussure's theory of language highlights the decisive role of meaning and signification in structuring human life more generally.[16]

Poststructuralism (Foucault)

Following the perceived limitations of the modern era, emerged postmodern theory.[12] Postmodern theorists rejected modernist claims that there was one theoretical approach that explained all aspects of society.[13] Rather, postmodernist theorists were interested in examining the variety of experience of individuals and groups and emphasized differences over similarities and common experiences.[14]

In contrast to modern theory, postmodern theory is more fluid, allowing for individual differences as it rejects the notion of social laws. Such theorists shifted away from truth-seeking, and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge is plural, contextual, and historically-produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies, and practices.[14]

Michel Foucault

French social theorist Michel Foucault developed a notion of discourse in his early work, namely in the Archaeology of Knowledge (1969; French: L'archéologie du savoir). Iara Lessa (2006) summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as "systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak."[18] Foucault traces the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating and power, emphasizing the construction of current truths, how they are maintained, and what power relations they carry with them. He would later theorize discourse as a medium through which power relations produce speaking subjects.[14]

Foucault (1977, 1980) argued that power and knowledge are inter-related and, thus, every human relationship is a struggle and negotiation of power.[19] Even further, he would state that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth.[14] Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse, therefore, is controlled by: objects, what can be spoken of; ritual, where and how one may speak; and the privileged, who may speak.[2] Coining the phrase power-knowledge, Foucault (1980) would argue that knowledge is both the creator of power and the creation of power. An object becomes a "node within a network." In the Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault uses the example of a book to illustrate a node within a network: a book is not made up of individual words on a page, each of which has meaning, but rather "is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences." The meaning of that book is connected to a larger, overarching web of knowledge and ideas to which it relates.

One of the key discourses that Foucault identified as part of his critique of power-knowledge was that of neoliberalism, which he related very closely to his conceptualization of governmentality in his lectures on biopolitics.[20] This trajectory of Foucault's thinking has been taken up widely within Human Geography.

gollark: <@!221273650131763200> Go is bad.
gollark: I quite like JavascIpt's web frameworks myself.
gollark: Also *supaoverhyped*.
gollark: Honestly, I'd prefer dynamic typing over a really awful static type system like Go's.
gollark: I think you should run from Go as fast as possible.

See also

References
  1. Rastier, Francois, ed. (June 2001). "A Little Glossary of Semantics". Texto! Texts & Cultures (Electronic journal) (in French). Translated by Larry Marks. Ferdinand de Saussure Institute. ISSN 1773-0120. Retrieved 5 April 2020.
  2. Foucault, Michel (1969). L'Archéologie du savoir (in French). Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
  3. Foucault, Michel (1970) [1966]. The Order of Things. New York City: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-415-26737-3.
  4. Compact Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus and Wordpower Guide (2001). New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. London: Duke University Press.
  6. Muskens, Reinhard. "Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation." Linguistics and philosophy 19.2 (1996): 143-186.
  7. Ruiz, Jorge R. (2009-05-30). "Sociological discourse analysis: Methods and logic". Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 10 (2): Article 26.CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  8. "Politics, Ideology, and Discourse" (PDF). Retrieved 2019-01-27.
  9. van Dijk, Teun A. "What is Political Discourse Analysis?" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-03-21.
  10. Feindt, Peter H.; Oels, Angela (2005). "Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making". Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 7 (3): 161–173. doi:10.1080/15239080500339638.
  11. Schryer, Catherine F., and Philippa Spoel. 2005. "Genre theory, health-care discourse, and professional identity formation." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19: 249. Retrieved from SAGE.
  12. Larrain, Jorge. 1994. Ideology and Cultural Identity: Modernity and the Third World Presence. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 9780745613154. Retrieved via Google Books.
  13. Best, Steven; Kellner, Douglas (1997). The Postmodern Turn. New York City: The Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-57230-221-1.
  14. Strega, Susan. 2005. "The View from the Poststructural Margins: Epistemology and Methodology Reconsidered." Pp. 199–235 in Research as Resistance, edited by L. Brown, & S. Strega. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
  15. Regnier, 2005
  16. Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 978-0-335-20070-2.
  17. Sommers, Aaron. 2002. "Discourse and Difference." Cosmology and our View of the World, University of New Hampshire. Seminar summary.
  18. Lessa, Iara (February 2006). "Discursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood". The British Journal of Social Work. 36 (2): 283–298. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch256.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  19. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York City: Pantheon Books.
  20. Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth Of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Further reading
  • Foucault, Michel (1972) [1969]. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-415-28752-4.
  • — (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-394-49942-0.
  • — (1980). "Two Lectures," in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews, edited by C. Gordon. New York; Pantheon Books.
  • — (2003). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador. ISBN 978-0-312-42266-0.
  • McHoul, Alec; Grace, Wendy (1993). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power, and the Subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5480-1.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.