Suchergebnisse

The following article examines the theoretical foundations and practical consequences of Slavoj Žižek's critique of Foucauldian discourse analysis. It does so by uncovering Žižek's idiosyncratic approach to the question of ideology critique. The aim of our investigation is twofold. First, we attempt to demonstrate the implications of Foucault's failure to theorize the generative principle of sociosymbolic formations; second, we argue that by conceiving the Real of class antagonism as the disavowed core of ideological fantasy, Žižek rectifies Foucault's inconsistency while simultaneously opening up a vital political space for the reconceptualization of the paradigm of ideology critique. Our article does not attempt to bring into dialogue Foucault's theory of discourse with Žižek's theory of ideology; rather, it stages an encounter between the two. The encounter involves a contrastive comparison, the tertium comparationis of which is the problematic of how Foucault's and Žižek's respective frameworks may help us conceptualize political change. Against this background and criterion it is possible to establish where and why their social theories differ, and to assess the extent to which Žižek's theoretical choices are preferable to Foucault's.

In diesem Interview schildert Ruth WODAK die Anfänge ihrer Karriere und was sie in das Feld der Kritischen Diskursanalyse geführt hat. Sie legt dar, was an der Kritischen Diskursanalyse "kritisch" ist, differenziert "Kritik" von "Dogmatismus" und thematisiert die Beziehung zwischen Kritik und einer normativen Position. An Ende des Interviews stellt sie in Aussicht, dass eine "integrative Interdisziplinarität" ein Weg sein kann, um disziplinäre Inkommensurabilität zu überwinden.

In diesem Interview skizziert der Sprachwissenschaftler Dominique MAINGUENEAU die Geschichte der Diskursanalyse in Frankreich. Nach einem Überblick über ihren intellektuellen Entstehungskontext wendet er sich Schlüsselfiguren der Diskursanalyse in Frankreich wie Michel FOUCAULT und Michel PÊCHEUX zu. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit widmet er Michel FOUCAULT, der seine Arbeiten zur diskursiven Szenographie und zu selbst-konstituierenden Diskursen entscheidend beeinflusst hat. Mit Blick auf FOUCAULT's methodologische Wirkmächtigkeit hebt MAINGUENEAU das Problem der Äußerung hervor. Als eine französische Version der Diskurspragmatik fokussiert die Äußerungslinguistik auf die Art und Weise, wie sich Texte mit ihren Kontexten verbinden.

PÊCHEUX (1938-1983) war von den 1960er Jahren bis in die frühen 1980er Jahre einer der Hauptvertreter einer wichtigen und produktiven Phase der französischen Diskursanalyse. Zusammen mit anderen (auch bekannteren) Diskursforschern wie Michel FOUCAULT war er durch die Epistemologie BACHELARDs und den Poststrukturalismus ALTHUSSERs beeinflusst. Er teilte mit den Diskursforschern das Interesse an der Diskurstheorie. Aber sein wichtigster Beitrag zur Diskursanalyse besteht in der Entwicklung von Techniken für die empirische Diskursanalyse. PÊCHEUX geht es dabei um den Bruch mit der "Spontanideologie" der Inhaltsanalyse, wofür er ein formales und potenziell automatisierbares Vorgehen entworfen hat, das er "Automatische Diskursanalyse" genannt hat. Diese Vorgehensweise sollte eine strukturalistische Diskursanalyse ermöglichen, mit dem die syntaktischen Elemente identifiziert wurden und die Beziehungen zwischen Auswahl und Substituierung der syntaktischen Elemente in einem Textkorpus beschrieben werden konnten. In der Auseinandersetzung mit den Kritiken an der Automatischen Diskursanalyse und in dem Versuch, deren Begrenzungen zu überwinden, hat sich PÊCHEUX von der strukturalistischen Perspektive entfernt und eine reflexivere Theorie des Interdiskurses entwickelt. Damit sollten die ideologischen Konflikte und die veränderlichen Ungleichheiten zwischen Diskursen erklärt werden können. Der vorliegende Beitrag präsentiert die verschiedenen Phasen, die PÊCHEUXs Arbeiten durchlaufen haben, um ein empirisches Instrument für die Diskursanalyse zu entwickeln.

To study ideology is to some extent, to study the ways in which language and meaning are used in everyday forms of social interaction. This is why a theory of language and a linguistic tradition which concerns itself with ideology will be much richer than narrow approaches which concern themselves only with system of signs, fixed meanings or well formed sentences. A theory of language as a social semiotic and of language and ideology has to concern itself with language as a form of social interaction, a meaning potential in and through which subjects and the social are constructed and reproduce while cultural and human conflict are negotiated. Such an analysis depends upon an account of relations of power which takes into account on cultural conflict and the problem of lack of consensus about systems of ideas or beliefs which characterize social systems and includes an account of the relations between action, institutions and social structures.CDA takes particular interest in the relationship between language and power. It is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted. Critical discourse analysts, then, take explicit position and want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.This study attempts to transcend linguistic elements and to include a systematic fashion of the historical and political, sociological and/or psychological dimension in the analysis and interpretation of specific texts by using the principle of triangulating CDA. This involves Gaventa's Power Cube, Fairclough's Three Dimension's of Discourse and Martin and Rose' Appraisal System as a conceptual framework of analysis of blogging, one of various social media discourse.

Bibliography: leaves 54-58. ; This study focuses on the discourses of exile identity and the subjectivity of an individual born in exile. The study also focuses on the methodology used whereby, unlike traditional research where the researcher interviews subjects; in this case the subjects interview the researcher. 6 individuals from different backgrounds, who will be referred to as participants, were chosen, 2 male and 4 females, to interview the subject (1, the researcher). The participants interviewed the subject, exploring her exile identity. The resulting taped discussions were analyzed. A discourse analysis methodology is used to analyze the conversations. Four main discourses are outlined, which have sub-discourses within them. The main discourses are the political, territorial, patriarchy and language. These discourses were identified by their repeated occurrence in the research material. These four discourses appear to be pervasive and are indicative of exile identity as it emerges in the subjectivity of the subject. These discourses can not be generalized to exiles in general. Although discourses were similar across the texts, there were contradictory discourses that emerged. These seem to be as a result of the inter-subjective field, and the differences between the individuals that were conducting the interviews. Due to the fact that it was a different interviewer each time, this created differences, as different issues were highlighted in the stories that were told by the subject, due to a different interaction with the participant.

Chapter 1. Introducing Discourse Analysis in EU Politics -- Chapter 2 Discourse Analysis as Research Strategy -- Chapter 3. Discourse Analysis, Data and Research Techniques -- Chapter 4. Discourse and EU Policy Making -- Chapter 5. Discourse and the Strategic Usage of Europe -- Chapter 6. Discourse, Myths and Emotions in EU Politics -- Chapter 7. Visual Discourse, Imagery and EU Politics -- Chapter 8. Taking Stock and Looking Ahead