1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Two branches of discourse studies, critical discourse analysis (CDA) and discourse theory (DT), could benefit through extending their critical focus and incorporating findings and methodologies of neighbouring disciplines. While indebted to the attentiveness of CDA to ordinary language, ideology studies have by contrast developed interpretative, non-judgmental analytical frameworks that explore the many-faceted features of ideology, power, and the political. In turn, the macro-focus of DT on binary distinctions, articulatory equivalences, and the construction of hegemony through empty signifiers, overlooks the complex internal conceptual morphology that produces multiple ideological vocabularies. Through a layered filtering of texts, utterances, and linguistic intensities, ideological micro-morphology reveals processes of semantic decontestation in order to defend, alter or criticize political thought-practices. It illuminates the complex interrelationship between word and concept and accepts fantasies as ineluctable and decodable features of communal life. By reaching out beyond their disciplinary confines, the interplay of these parallel approaches could enrich the scholarly understanding of the political.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.20051.fre
2020-12-14
2021-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Carpentier, Nico, and Benjamin De Cleen
    2007 “Bringing Discourse Theory into Media Studies.” Journal of Language and Politics6: 266–293. doi:  10.1075/jlp.6.2.08car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.6.2.08car [Google Scholar]
  2. Collier, David, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, and Andra Olivia Maciuceanu
    2006 “Essentially Contested Concepts: Debates and Applications.” Journal of Political Ideologies11: 211–235. doi:  10.1080/13569310600923782
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600923782 [Google Scholar]
  3. d’Ancona, Matthew
    2017Post Truth. London: Ebury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fairclough, Norman
    2001Language and Power, 2nd edn. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Flinders, Matthew, and Matt Wood
    2018 “Discursive Depoliticisation and Political Disengagement.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, edited byRuth Wodak and Bernhard Forchtner, 603–617. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Freeden, Michael
    1996Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/actrade/9780192802811.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192802811.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2012 “The Professional Responsibilities of the Political Theorist.” InLiberalism as Ideology: Essays in Honour of Michael Freeden, edited byBen Jackson and Marc Stears, 259–277. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199600670.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199600670.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013The Political Theory of Political Thinking: The Anatomy of a Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568031.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568031.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2021 “Ideologiekritik – A Critique.” InPostcolonial Texts and Contexts, edited byKatja Sarkowsky & Mark Stein, 15–29. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Freeden, Michael, Lyman Tower Sargent, and Marc Stears
    eds. 2013The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Freeden, Michael, Javier Fernández-Sebastián, and Jörn Leonhard
    eds. 2019In Search of European Liberalisms: Concepts, Languages, Ideologies. Berghahn: New York and Oxford. 10.2307/j.ctv1850h1f
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1850h1f [Google Scholar]
  13. Geuss, Raymond
    1981The Idea of a Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Glynos, Jason
    2001 “The Grip of Ideology: a Lacanian Approach to the Theory of Ideology.” Journal of Political Ideologies6: 191–214. doi:  10.1080/13569310120053858
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310120053858 [Google Scholar]
  15. Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth
    2007Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203934753
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934753 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glynos, Jason, Robin Klimecki, and Hugh Willmott
    2015 “Logics in Policy and Practice: A Critical Nodal Analysis of the UK Banking Reform Process.” Critical Policy Studies9(4): 393–415. doi:  10.1080/19460171.2015.1009841
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1009841 [Google Scholar]
  17. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno
    2002Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9780804788090
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804788090 [Google Scholar]
  18. Howarth, David
    ed. 2015Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Laclau, Ernesto
    1990New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005On Populist Reason. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe
    1985Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Laycock, David
    ed. 2019Political Ideology in Parties, Policy, and Civil Society: Interdisciplinary Insights. Vancouver: UBC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Martínez Rivas, Rafael, and Irene Lanzas Zotes
    2020 “Tres Approximaciones Teóricas a Los Discursos Polítocos: Concepto, Significante y Argumento.” Revista de Estudios Politicos188: 41–69. 10.18042/cepc/rep.188.02
    https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.188.02 [Google Scholar]
  24. Therborn, Göran
    1980The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Thompson, Martyn P.
    1993 “Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meanings.” History and Theory32: 248–272. 10.2307/2505525
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2505525 [Google Scholar]
  26. Trencsényi, Balázs, Michal Kopeček, Luka Lisjak Gabrijelčič, Maria Falina, Mónika Baár, and Maciej Janowski
    2018A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe, vol.II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wodak, Ruth
    2015The Politics of Fear. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wodak, Ruth, and Bernhard Forchtner
    eds. 2018The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    eds. 2009Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.20051.fre
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse analysis , ideological morphology , ideology , Laclau and political concepts
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error