Ħsibijiet (67): Discursive voids

When contradictory discourses are combined together this is referred to as "‘interdiscursivity’ (Fairclough, 2015, p. 38), where discourses with largely independent and sometimes antagonistic sources combine in novel ways to create a culturally resonant and ideologically potent fusion.” (Matt Guardino, 2017)

Maybe we can take this to another dimension - Tonkiss (1998) refers to 'discursive silence', which in turn is similar to the concept of “nondecision”, which was advanced by Bachrach and Baratz (1970). Here the power of a discourse is expressed in how it is left out of the agenda, for example by elbowing it out in favour of other discourses or by attempting to ignore the elephant in the room.

Such concepts can help us understand how political agents try to influence public discourse, often in contradictory ways. Amid the noise,  such analysis is required to help understand how power works.  

New Publication on Discourse Analysis

My latest paper, WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Discourse Analysis has been published in Early Human Development, a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier (Science Direct).

The paper argues that discourse analysis enables the identification of what social actors say and do but also of what they represent in terms of values and motivation Such an analysis can also unearth ideological representations which legitimize the reproduction of social structures, irrespective of whether such representations reflect some objective reality or not. In their turn, such structures are contingent and incomplete, and are subject to changes. Discourse analysis examines their political and historical construction and functioning. What this approach does is help us understand how certain facts and non-facts make it to the political agenda whilst others do not, and how they are interpreted within the public sphere.

DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.03.014

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378378219301835?via%3Dihub

Hegemonic Formations and Social Change

A hegemonic formation - whether on a macro or micro level - can be replaced by another, formed by a relatively stable fixing of plural discourses. Sectarianism and absolutism hinder this.

Further reading: 

·                     Howarth, D. (2000): Discourse. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

·                     Howarth, D. (2004): ‘Hegemony, political subjectivity and radical democracy’, in Critchley S. and Marchart O. (Eds.): Laclau: A critical reader, pp.256-276. Routledge: London.  

·                     Howarth, D. and Stavrakakis, Y. (2000): ‘Introducing discourse theory and political analysis’, in Howarth, D., Norval, A.J., and Stavrakakis, Y. (eds.):Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, pp.1-23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

·                     Laclau, E. (2005) On Populist Reason. London: Verso.

·                     Laclau, E. (2014): The Rhetorical Foundations of Society. London: Verso

·                     Laclau E. and Mouffe C. (1985): Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.

·                     Mouffe, C. (2005): On the Political. London: Routledge.

·                     Mouffe, C. (2013): Antagonistics. London: Verso