When
I think of discourse as both theory and method, I do not have any separation in
my mind in terms of ontological and epidemiological differences about
discourse. Whenever I use discourse, I remember one kind of the Archimedean
Point. Discourse related not only to what is said, but essentially where, how
it is said as an act. It is reproduced by agent and system together. It is a
kind of joint ground, line to frame the meaning.
There
are multi-levels of definitions that we have to be clear about it. I can classify
them to make sense of it, I make a kind of categories. We need to define the
difference between hegemony and ideology. Wodak, Fairclough and van Dijk seem
slightly different rationalization to use and define them. Functionality and
causality should be redefined to understand the meaning. In addition to them,
we have to define language and power to produce and reproduce the discourse to legitimize
the inequalities in social and economic relations. The second one is that consensus
and social reproduction of meaning is needed to explain in a discursive sense.
In other words, discourse could be explained as a regime to decontextualized
power relations as social truth. I am still having many uncertainty about my
reception of discourse. But, I am certain that discourse is essence as presence
of discourse itself. Either it is wider battle field (Wodak), or “war of maneuver”
and “war of position” (Fairclough) make inequality visible. Either it could be progress
to create reason (van Dijk), or it could be regime to reproduce the genealogy
and archaeology of meaning.
Zulfukar, you noted that, "...I am certain that discourse is essence as presence of discourse itself." Can you say more what you mean by this statement.
ReplyDeleteYou know that I define discourse as meta-ground for all social actions. Discourse seems to me that each action (artifacts) could be understood by another artifact(s). It is impossible to escape from making claims without being discursive. If I remember correctly, it is more close to "meta-semiotic" (Jessob, 2004). In this sense, it metaphorically looks like Janus, who was one of the Roman gods. Janus was believed that he waited at the entrance of with two-faces. One was towards outside of city, the other one was towards inside of city. Discourse is,philosophically, the place where subjects are able to create its own being. It is about having conditions to articulate the reason. In other words, it is not only transcendent, but also transcendental. By tracking through it, subjects both gain self-consciousness and the potentiality to overcome the horizons of the field of discoursivity. Essence of discourse is more related with its potentiality and conditionality to define, frame and contextualize the social actions (material-semiotic), presence of discourse is more related with its transcendental functionality.
ReplyDeleteReference:
Jessop, B. (2004) ‘Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy’, Critical Discourse Studies,
1 (2): 159–175.