What is critical discourse analysis? It is a general term that refers to a specific research method understood within the framework of interpretive social sciences or interpretive political science. The term “social sciences” would be more precise. By “interpretive,” I do not mean that the fundamental task isn’t, for example, collecting sting data and classifying it, which can certainly be done in mathematically-driven social sciences. Here, I am more focused on interpreting empirical data. For example, we do not need to collect large amounts of data, such as interviewing hundreds of people or surveying thousands, to understand social reality. Instead, we focus on more limited cases or specific analytical materials, approaching the understanding of social reality in a more interpretive manner.
People typically construct meaning from their experiences and interpret what is happening in the world around them. A crucial point, however, is that critical discourse analysis relies on a specific social science methodology that acknowledges that social reality, or reality itself, is constructed. This means that for some, particularly those engaged in critical discourse analysis or similar interpretive social sciences, the argument is that social reality does not exist independently of us; rather, we create it through social practices and experiences.
What is more relevant to us, however, is the more radical view that reality is entirely constructed through language, as opposed to the more moderate view that language is an important but not exclusive aspect of social reality. In other words, some perspectives argue that social issues, or social wrongs, only exist if we recognize them. Radical perspectives would say that a social issue, or social reality, only exists once we acknowledge it. On the other hand, more moderate approaches are less concerned with whether a reality exists independently of us and more focused on how it exists as a problem and what that means for understanding true social wrongs. They do not deny that social wrongs exist independently of us, but they question what the impact is. How do we understand these social wrongs from the social wrongs themselves? This distinction is crucial, as it leads us toward a certain type of analysis. In other words, some radical approaches, like social-explanation social sciences, prioritize the process of problematization in critical discourse analysis. So, what is being said, and how is it being said? Should we say that social wrongs are social wrongs? What exactly should we say? But those with a more moderate focus, whom I prefer to collaborate with, try to understand how this problematization, this description of reality, relates to reality itself. Why construct social reality in this way? How is this framework made possible and necessary? Is this way of understanding truly necessary? To what extent is this framework really connected to the social problems themselves?
The focus shifts from the discourse itself to placing the discourse within a broader social reality. This is indeed very important for us. Therefore, many of my methods largely align with this more moderate constructivist view, which argues that discourses only have meaning when they are somehow related to social reality. Social reality exists independently of us or our cognition, which contrasts with the radical view that claims the external world does not exist unless we recognize it. Given the extensive literature on critical discourse analysis, it can sometimes be confusing because it is an umbrella term, as I’ve told you, encompassing very different perspectives. I primarily rely on the specific introductory chapter or preface that Norman Fairclough wrote for the third edition of his book Language and Power in 2015. This is an older book, but it is still regarded as an excellent introductory text for critical discourse analysis worldwide. Norman Fairclough himself has shifted some of his positions over time, as has been the case for almost the past 40-50 years. His focus has somewhat diminished now. However, I believe that the foundational knowledge of critical discourse analysis presented by Norman Fairclough is enough for me to understand the field.
What is the difference between radical and moderate social constructivist perspectives?
First, what is discourse? Following the moderate view, discourse—its language—tells other elements of social processes within their relationships. This means that discourse, and its language, are related to power, material practices, institutions, rituals, beliefs, failures, and desires. But discourse is not just language. It is often understood as, well, you’ll understand, that we create meaning not only through language but also through various other communicative tools, such as visual images, right? These images themselves sometimes establish a discourse. Therefore, they not only accompany texts but bring us new ways of understanding social reality.
Texts and written materials alone are usually insufficient for analysis. However, for the practical purpose of this course, we won’t interpret the entire world as symmetrical. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to use the term to select our object of inquiry solely from written materials. Of course, you can choose to use images. That’s perfectly fine. But for our current purposes, they are secondary, I would say. Therefore, our object of inquiry will be specific texts, like newspaper articles. But this is just the starting point. So, in critical discourse analysis, we focus on the texts thus far and seek to analyze your object of inquiry. But for objective criticism, we need to understand larger discursive entities, such as media support, interviews, and policy documents. What I mean is, we can’t just focus on a few messages and look for other messages. If the text you’ve chosen for practical reasons already gives you much of the discourse you want to analyze, then in that sense, you don’t need to look for additional objects of inquiry. But if, for example, you want to focus on a speech, and it is too short to understand the discourse, you might need other texts. These texts may either come from the framework created by the actors you are focusing on or from general sources, or you might even look at texts related to the president or the president’s party, produced in other contexts. These texts may not directly address the topic but could help enrich the subject for your analysis. This is not irrelevant or disconnected from the speech. But in general, for example, if we are trying to write a thesis with this method, we should focus on the discourse sequence rather than a single text.
When we choose a discourse, we can be more practical. We can focus on radical inquiries, etc. But we should understand what we mean by criticism and the foundation of our critique, which is the most important part and also, I think, the most difficult part of my thinking—being a critic of the existing social reality. So this is very important. We don’t analyze or just criticize the discourse itself. For example, when you read that it uses politically unacceptable language, we don’t stop there. We don’t say, “Okay, if this is entirely incorrect, we try to use discourse as an entry point to criticize the broader social reality.” This is very basic. Therefore, the usual question in critical discourse analysis, with which I align myself, is: Why is the discourse like this? So, of course, you can and should focus, to some extent, on false statements, manipulation, or other forms of criticism or commentary in XXX, citing the audience in XXX, because when you read, for instance, newspaper articles on the internet, you encounter reactions from some readers. These readers have already criticized them. So, what’s the difference between your critique and the existing criticisms from what we call ordinary audience critiques? This is an important matter—how you systematize your critique, how to make it legitimate, reasonable, and distinct, and argue from the origin and criticism that it has a correct direction.
You must be able to explain this question: Why is the discourse like this? Because other forms of criticism are already everywhere. Whenever you hear discourse around you, you are always carrying a critical perspective. People start discussing how men manipulate and use rhetoric. Although I don’t fully understand the reasons for this, your goal is, I must tell it and emphasize it, to answer and explain the question. So, why is there such a discussion?
First, this question is important, and we must explain it. But we consider this issue for explanation because these courses are causally effective. The verb means causal relationship is effective. In other words, these courses both create new realities and shape the ways we connect with other realities, other social elements. For example, conspiracy, streets, sleeves, and everything else—these are not just discourse. They all trigger some form of existence and behavior in life. But these elements themselves only depend on certain power relations. Therefore, certain power relations create specific discourses. These elements create specific social practices. So the question is why we try to understand the origin of discourse. So, what makes it possible and possible to exist? To what extent do social issues lead to the steam engine of discourse, and is this necessary for our real discourse? What is this return to reality discourse, and how does it intervene in reality? What is its impact on us? This is very important. But about systemic criticism, I won’t go into detail here.
However, regarding this kind of systemic criticism, it involves two different levels.
On the first level, you must explain your findings, right? Starting from today’s discussion. Your entry point is discourse. First, you must ask some questions. So how do you have a program to explain? These questions should essentially try to understand how this discourse reconceptualizes social reality. I haven’t provided a specific list of questions here. I haven’t given you a concrete program to follow. You can be more relaxed here. And because these programs are often too serious, when they are taken too seriously, it’s problematic. But you should develop your own program in this sense, and you should develop a set of questions you need to ask to evaluate arguments. For example, how do these arguments depict social reality or issues, how do they problematize social issues, etc.? I will return to these questions and some examples.
On the second level, you must explain. For instance, why this is problematic. Social reality is giving rise to problems in the dark discourse in this way. Here, the basic task, of course, is also the biggest problem, is to establish social theory and analysis. Therefore, without broader analysis, and just showing your theory, you won’t be able to explain this through these elements in this way. For example, trying to understand social theory and placing social theory in terms of understanding family politics or family chaos.
Therefore, how different types of systemic elements, including discourse and non-discursive elements, are interconnected, partly depends on the ratios in our organizations, institutions, and societies, which help us understand practices. We won’t be able to complete all these and the practices involved, as these practices are developed in many occasions and events. So the explanation here means how discourse relates to other issues. Essentially, the relationship between discourse and other non-discursive elements should not be understood merely from a functional perspective. So what I mean is, it may not even be functional. Sometimes it might be dysfunctional, right? We don’t know. We don’t directly analyze impact because we don’t do filtering. But of course, you can be more creative here, right? What potential impact might this discourse have on the reproduction or change of social order? Therefore, to what extent is this discourse necessary for power relations and the continuation, reproduction, or change of gender order? This is a fundamental issue in critical discourse analysis, and it’s not always so simple and straightforward. Often, we tend to keep guessing, speculating analysis. Of course, some discourse analyses go another way, beginning with internal critiques to understand power relations. For example, they also try to show the differences between symbolic practices or contradictions between the values espoused and the implementation.
#Research MethodsLast modified on 2024-10-01