Discourse is reloaded....

            Four years ago, I saw my mother crying at our kitchen. She was standing in front of our washbasin. The water was running and she was telling her sadness to water. She did not realize that I had been watching her for a while. When she saw me, she tried to hide her sadness. Even though she did not want to tell her thoughts and feelings to me, I just heart what she was telling to water. Two, or more days later, I asked her about her reason on telling to water. She told me that when you felt sad and desperate, tell your problems to water, it would take them away from you. It is a folk belief in Anatolia which people could tell the story which seems more burden to water to get rid of it.

            This cultural articulation could be transferred to discourse (water) and agent (individual). We as an agent need to express our intuitions to discourse (ordinary language / communication) to feel better and exist. It is one of the necessary part of living like breathing and feeding. This interaction leads to frame Mind, Selves and Identities between discourse and agent. Unity of two-parts is very important issue to understand the mind and claims which are produced by agent.

            Discourse is more and more meta-ground for me to make meaning visible. We could develop and use many tools and “mediating” holes to define them in an organized way since they need to be captured and decoded within interaction. Most of the collective inventions / articulations like language, culture and so on could enable us see our reflective existence in a context dependent sense, but they are also open to change and reframe. I underlined this dualistic and circular existences of human kind to explain our debates on discourse and discursive psychology.

            The most important thing that I really want to underline is that the material and psychical condition could change our potentialities about understanding both system and lifeworld, mind, selves and identities in terms of power, freedom, responsibility and right. These four are my axis  in social science. When the machine of printing press was invented, the discourse / rhetoric was the written. The dependent relations between listener and hearer led to frame the new form of relations which are based on the reader and writer. Modernity was not only about having the articulation of new methods, it was also about polarization of positions in terms of discourse as a ground. When we looked at the other invention like recorders, television, phones and computers, we have more roles who have been called with different labels, audiences, viewers, user and customers. We know that all of them are based on the basic relations of human being which are teller and listener, mediating is the meaning and scope of meaning within language.

            Certainly, I liked our both reading texts which are Woofit (2005) and Jorgen & Philips (2002) as an introductory resource to discourse, critical discourse and discursive psychology. The tracking about similarities and differences between them is very helpful, to read about the differences seems to me that it is very empirical report. I know that I need more studies and theory about “the behind stage”. I feel that I watch a new academic serial as genre, I would like to hear more about the material and psychical conditions that makes conversation analysis possible, discourse analysis “post” etc.

Framing Mind, Selves and Identities as sociocultural holes

            If I frame the possibility of mediating and organic nurture of social actions, I could make more sense about the formation of mind, selves and identities. I know that freedom, power, responsibility and right are universal norms for me, they need to be self-determinant like subject, system etc. They could interpellate us to frame our mind to make the world better place, or we could lead them to make it in “this game”. We are both homo-sapiens (biological) and homo-ludens (dialogical) and we seek to find holes to cross our own horizon.

What makes possible to go further about understanding the discourse? I feel that Hegel was right as well as Marx.