General Thoughts on Discourse

Discourse theories aim to understand and explain social realities through an examination of language.

While Marx, for example, saw economics as the determining logics of social realities, discourse theorists see discourse as the functioning logics (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011).

Discourse, it is argued, formulates or constructs our social realities, which are rooted in the knowledge systems, worldviews, and ideologies of a culture and in turn construct the social world, its objects and social actors. Since each culture can have its own knowledge systems, worldviews, and ideologies, it also has its own discourse, or “particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011). What’s interesting here is just how many different cultures and thus discourses can exist both synchronically and diachronically.

We should not think of culture as simply being say ethnically or geographically rooted, but based on the same social relations - physical, professional, national, temporal, economic, religious, etc. - that people participate in. Thus, an individual can simultaneously be immersed in multiple discourses, but is expected to use a particular discourse at particular times.

For example, a doctor is expected to use ‘medical discourse’ while in her professional setting but utilize ‘familial discourse’ while at home with her family. Her medical jargon would not constitute effective communication at home - her child, mother, or spouse may not be familiar with such jargon – but more importantly, ‘medical discourse’ would constitute her as a social actor in a social role, with a social identity, serving a social function inappropriate for that social domain (Fairclough, 2001). She would not be fulfilling a social role that the social setting requires of her.

Furthermore, her choice of language is not universal across conversations with all members of the family at all times and in all settings, and the language she chooses is a machine that constructs the nature of these social interactions (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011). However, does she really have the ultimate freedom to ‘choose’ the language she uses? Yes and no. She must use different language when dealing with her children versus her spouse, or in various settings with the same group. Using erotic or sexually arousing language is appropriate with her spouse only in certain settings and is inappropriate or even highly unethical with her children.

The many roles she plays, demand she use a variety of discourses. When at work, she does not only fulfill the role of the ‘Doctor’, but of the ‘Manager’, the ‘Researcher’, the ‘Empathetic Listener’, and so on. These different ‘discourses’, ‘sub-discourses’, ‘genres’, ‘dialects’, or whatever term we use, construct her as a different social actor for each setting (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011).

Now, why do I list each of these terms as if they are all synonymous with the term ‘discourse’? Simply because I do not yet understand the nuances of their meanings. They’re new words for me. At least in this knowledge system. So, I try my best to learn them, to enact them, so as to carry on efficiently formulating this response (Fairclough, 2001). As I look at each term, I find that the delineating characteristics are not easily apparent. What’s more, the definition for ‘genres’ I’ve inherited from years past holds subtle differences in meaning from what Van Dijk suggests (Van Dijk, 2017). The same is very true for the term ‘discourse’, for up until now, I had thought of it only as ‘people in discussion’. I no longer take my previous understanding of discourse for granted.

This is one of the key premises of discourse analysis. It is to critically “approach taken-for-granted knowledge” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011). My new-found understanding of the word ‘discourse’ has fundamentally altered the way I see the world! I am now equipped to assume the role of ‘discourse analyst’, ready to uncover other taken-for-granted knowledge, ready to know social reality by uncovering discourse. But wait! By learning these new definitions of the many terms mentioned above, I’m simultaneously trying to turn them into taken-for-granted knowledge so that I can move on and employ them in my studies. Yet, by accepting these definitions without question, I’m going against the very thing that I hope to do as a discourse analyst!

Further still, if I “accept that ‘reality’ is socially constructed, that ‘truths’ are discursively produced effects and that subjects are decentred, what do [I] do about the ‘truth’ that we as researcher-subjects produce” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011)? Would it be any ‘truer’ than my previous ‘truth’? Reflexivity and utmost clarity of values might just be the key (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011). Since, as a discourse analyst, I’m to believe that ‘truth’ is socially constructed through discursive practice, then I must be critical of the discourses that create these 'truths'. Even my own. Critical Discourse Analysis takes this in full stride, adopting Marxism's focus on power imbalances, Foucault’s thoughts of the ‘Power/Knowledge’ duality, and Stuart Hall’s focus on the media, to rectify oppressive discourse (Van Dijk, 2017).

The duty of the Critical Discourse Analyst is to “understand, expose, and ultimately challenge social inequality” (Van Dijk, 2017). To engage in a social movement of social change and emancipation. Hegemonic discourses and ideologies must be critiqued since certain powerful groups have access to a power base - money, communication channels, knowledge creation, etc. - which allows them to manipulate public discourses, control minds, and thus control behavior to serve their own interests (Van Dijk, 2017). Even without a discrete group at the helm of the ship, our discourses, inherited through historical legacy, might not be best serving us.

I may very well adopt discourse analysis in my future studies of the scientific world. By assuming that the scientific world is its own culture with its own discursive practices, I might better understand how science is communicated with the public. By inculcating the discourse of discourse analysis, and adopting the role of the discourse analyst, I could better understand how scientific knowledge ‘works’ in society and how it is ‘produced’ in its social context (Van Dijk, 2017).

For example, I’m currently studying Thomas Kuhn’s description of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions who uncovered trends throughout the history of science. He famously described the scientific method as that of a cyclic process of normal science, scientific revolution, and paradigms, during which competing theories struggle for supremacy (Kuhn, 1996). As a discourse analyst, I could view this in terms of competing discourses. For scientists, acquiring accurate knowledge is their stated goal. But since science is a social process, there must be some form of taken-for-granted knowledge and agreed-upon language that unities their activities. Relentless skepticism would make social cohesion and universal social action impossible. They must all share a discourse. This allows for what is known as normal science where a paradigm - mildly similar to the terms ideology, worldview, knowledge system, discourse - provides the framework for scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 1996). However, since science is continually trying to construct new knowledge, eventually the paradigm enters a period of crisis. It no longer provides an effective framework within which to operate and a scientific revolution begins (Kuhn, 1996). From a discourse analysis perspective, knowledge systems or discourses compete for superiority and once the revolution is resolved, a new hybrid discourse emerges (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2011). Scientists must inculcate this new discourse. Those who don’t, are outside of the realm of science.

As always, I question the tendency in critical theories to see things in terms of power imbalances which are necessarily oppressive and thus unethical. Critical discourse analysis imagines a “schema of the discursive reproduction of power" where power operates unidirectionally from the social structure - powerful groups, institutions, symbolic elites - to personal cognition - individual action (Van Dijk, 2017). Science is generally funded by the public and is to some extent democratically swayed by public interests.

My primary complaint, however, with discourse theories is in the complexities of its own discourse. To me, it seems that the terminology is robust, convoluted, and contextual. What really distinguishes the term discourse from language, ideology, knowledge system, framework, and more? Many terms seem to share many characteristics with only subtle differences which also depend on the context and discipline. In my opinion, the field of discourse analysis could benefit greatly from some agreements over terminologies.

References

Fairclough, N. (2001). The Dialectics of Discourse.

Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2011). I the Field of Discourse Analysis In: Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2017). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Bruce, J. Rankine, & R. Nairn (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Physical Cultural Studies (Issue 2015, pp. 467–475). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315745664