Critical Discourse Analysis(2010-12-25 22:47:59)
Sue L. T. McGregor
Dr. McGregor is Professor, Department of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS.
This issue of Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM is about using the critical science approach and critical discourse analysis (CDA) as tools to help members of the profession understand the messages they are sending to themselves and others and to understand the meanings of the words spoken and written by others. I ask that you not be “put off” by the theoretical jargon of critical science and critical discourse; instead, ask yourself if you ever read something or listened to someone’s words and asked yourself, “How can they even think that way? What are they really saying? Do all people believe this? What else could have been said?” This paper was written in an attempt to help you figure out the real meaning behind the spoken and written word in hopes that the insight gained can be used to bring about more equity, justice, freedom, peace, and hope—the betterment of the human family.
getting into the deeper theory of CDA and its methodology, I need
to convince you that this is a legitimate aspect of your practice.
To do that, I will share an example of a discourse (written words
with overt and hidden meaning) to illustrate how unmasking the
written word can bring about a different perspective and deeper
understanding of whose interest is being served. The Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) (February, 2003) reported a study on
student violence in Nova Scotia schools—“teachers facing fists,
threats.” To report the findings, the author cited the numbers,
not the statistics (see Figure 1). At first glance, these
numbers paint the exact picture the author wanted them to
paint--that “student” violence in school is a workplace issue and
that teachers need support to work in a difficult and dangerous
environment. Converting the numbers into statistics paints a less
compelling picture, and revealing the statistics paints a totally
different scenario, much less likely to incite people to see this
as a workplace issue instead of perceiving it as a response
from lonely, frustrated, bored, neglected, isolated children
seeking any kind of love and attention (my words). From a
percentage perspective, 15% said a student had hit them, 9.8% had
been kicked, 19% had been shoved, and 4% had been threatened or
assaulted with a weapon.
Better yet, a simple twist of the statistics paints a totally different picture sending a very different message: 85% of the teachers said they had not been hit by a student, 90% had not been kicked, 81% had not been shoved, and 96% had not been threatened or assaulted. The author of the report made a choice--play the low numbers (literally--no statistics) to make the point that students are a work hazard (How can they even think that?) and ignore the higher numbers to avoid making the other point that, by far, the majority of students are not dangerous or a threat to life at school. Whose interest is being served by the choice of words? That is what this paper is about—analyzing discourse to find hidden meanings.
A Tale of Power--Our Words are Never Neutral
analysis challenges us to move from seeing language as abstract to
seeing our words as having meaning in a particular historical,
social, and political condition. Even more significant, our words
(written or oral) are used to convey a broad sense of meanings and
the meaning we convey with those words is identified by our
immediate social, political, and historical conditions. Our
words are never neutral (Fiske, 1994)! This is a powerful
insight for home economists and family and consumer scientists (We
could have a whole discussion about the meaning that these two
labels convey!). We should never again speak, or read/hear others’
words, without being conscious of the underlying meaning of the
words. Our words are politicized, even if we are not aware of it,
because they carry the power that reflects the interests of those
who speak. Opinion leaders, courts, government, editors, even
family and consumer scientists, play a crucial role in shaping
issues and in setting the boundaries of legitimate discourse (what
is talked about and how) (Henry & Tator, 2002). The
words of those in power are taken as "self-evident truths" and the
words of those not in power are dismissed as irrelevant,
inappropriate, or without substance (van Dijk,
One of the central attributes of dominant discourse is its power to interpret conditions, issues, and events in favor of the elite. The discourse of the marginalized is seen as a threat to the propaganda efforts of the elite. It is for this reason that home economists must engage in critical discourse analysis—to make the voice of the marginalized legitimate and heard and to take the voice of those in power into question to reveal hidden agendas and motives that serve self-interests, maintain superiority, and ensure others’ subjugation (Henry & Tator, 2002). CDA helps make clear the connections between the use of language and the exercise of power (Thompson, 2002).
Understanding the Theory of Critical Discourse Analysis
Discourse refers to expressing oneself using words. Discourses are ubiquitous ways of knowing, valuing, and experiencing the world. Discourses can be used for an assertion of power and knowledge, and they can be used for resistance and critique. Discourses are used in everyday contexts for building power and knowledge, for regulation and normalization, for the development of new knowledge and power relations, and for hegemony (excess influence or authority of one nation over another). Given the power of the written and spoken word, CDA is necessary for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text (Luke, 1997). CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed within specific social, economic, political, and historical contexts (Van Dijk, 1988). It tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favor their interests. By unmasking such practices, CDA scholars aim to support the victims of such oppression and encourage them to resist and transform their lives (Foucault, 2000), the central tenet of critical theory and the critical science approach (McGregor, 2003).
from Habermas’s (1973) critical theory, CDA aims to help the
analyst understand social problems that are mediated by mainstream
ideology and power relationships, all perpetuated by the use of
written texts in our daily and professional lives. The objective of
CDA is to uncover the ideological assumptions that are hidden in
the words of our written text or oral speech in order to resist and
overcome various forms of power over or to gain an appreciation
that we are exercising "power over,” unbeknownst to us (Fairclough,
1989)1. CDA aims to systematically explore often opaque
relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and
wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. It
strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a
factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to
power imbalances, social inequities, non-democratic practices, and
other injustices in
three central tenets of CDA (Fairclough, 2000). Discourse is shaped
and constrained by (a) social structure (class, status, age, ethnic
identity, and gender) and by (b) culture. Home economics,
comprising members from across the social structure (but mainly
white, middle class, women), has a professional culture, which
shapes and constrains its discourse. What we say as home
economists, is shaped by our professional culture, socialization,
and member profile (social structure). (c) Discourse (the words and
language we use) helps shape and constrain our identities,
relationships, and systems of knowledge and beliefs. As home
economists, our identities, the nature of our social relationships,
and our knowledge and belief systems are shaped and constrained by
the language and words espoused by us and by
Furthermore, CDA tries to unite, and determine the relationship between, three levels of analysis: (a) the actual text; (b) the discursive practices (that is the process involved in creating, writing, speaking, reading, and hearing); and (c) the larger social context that bears upon the text and the discursive practices (Fairclough, 2000). In more detail, the text is a record of an event where something was communicated and involves the presentation of facts and beliefs (often ideological), the construction of identities of participants discussed in the communication, and strategies to frame the content of the message (to be discussed later). Discursive practice refers to rules, norms, and mental models of socially acceptable behavior in specific roles or relationships used to produce, receive, and interpret the message. They are the spoken and unspoken rules and conventions that govern how individuals learn to think, act, and speak in all the social positions they occupy in life (Alvermann, Commeyras, Young, Randall, & Hinson, 1977). Gee (1990) clarifies that discursive practices involve ways of being in the world that signify specific and recognizable social identities. We have learned to “be” home economists, students, daughters, mothers, members of an ethnic group or gender, entrepreneurs, and volunteers. Finally, the social context comprises distinct settings where discourse occurs (marketplace, classroom, playground, church, conferences), each with a set of conventions that determine rights and obligations—what each is allowed and expected to do. Simply put, the text becomes more than just words on a page—it discloses how those words are used in a particular social context (Huckin, 1997).
As might be expected, a critical approach to discourse seeks to link the text (micro level) with the underlying power structures in society (macro sociocultural practice level) through discursive practices upon which the text was drawn (meso level) (Thompson, 2002). Said another way, a text, a description of something that is happening in a larger social context replete with a complex set of power relations, is interpreted and acted upon by readers or listeners depending on their rules, norms, and mental models of socially acceptable behavior. Oppression, repression, and marginalization go unchallenged if the text is not critically analyzed to reveal power relations and dominance. CDA focuses on how social relations, identity, knowledge, and power are constructed through written and spoken texts in communities, schools, the media, and the political arena (Luke, 1997). Discourse always involves power and ideologies, is connected to the past and the current context (is historical), and can be interpreted differently by people because they have different backgrounds, knowledge, and power positions—therefore, the “right” interpretation does not exist whereas a more or less plausible or adequate interpretation is likely (Fairclough, 2002; Wodak & Ludwig, 1999).
Discourse and language can be used to make unbalanced power relations and portrayals of social groups appear to be commonsense, normal, and natural when in fact the reality is prejudice, injustice, and inequities. Using just words, those in power, or wishing to be so, can misdirect our concerns for persistent, larger systemic issues of class, gender, age, religion, and culture seem petty or nonexistent. Unless we begin to debunk their words, we can be misled and duped into embracing the dominant worldview (ideology) at our expense and their gain. Although the term discourse is slippery, elusive, and difficult to define (Henry & Tator, 2002), we must try. When discourse is effective in practice, evidenced by its ability to organize and regulate relations of power, it is called a "regime of truth" (Foucault, 1980). It is this regime, a system by which a political system is controlled, that is revealed when we engage in critical discourse analysis. How can we say we “empower individuals and families” if we do not teach ourselves, and them, how to debunk and unveil the truth behind the regime?
How to Conduct Critical Discourse Analysis
In order to do this, we need some skills to conduct a critical analysis of our own and other’s discourse. van Dijk (2000) acknowledges that CDA does not have a unitary theoretical framework or methodology because it is best viewed as a shared perspective encompassing a range of approaches instead of one school. The remainder of this primer will draw from these many approaches as it focuses on setting out some useful skills in critically analyzing written text. One key principle of CDA is that the way we write, and what we say, is not arbitrary—it is purposeful whether or not the choices are conscious or unconscious (Sheyholislami, 2001). Also, while CDA can also focus on body language, utterances, symbols, visual images, and other forms of semiosis (signs and symbols) as means of discourse (Fairclough, 2002), this paper will be limited to analyzing written language. 2
Huckin (1997) recommends that one first approach a text in an uncritical manner, like an ordinary, undiscerning reader, and then come at it again in a critical manner. Price (2002) said it well when she noted that engagement without estrangement is to submit to the power of the text, regardless on one’s own position, thereby accepting the reading and offering unquestioning support of the status quo. To offset this "take," coming at it a second time with a critical eye involves revisiting the text at different levels, raising questions about it, imagining how it could have been constructed differently, mentally comparing it to related texts. Also, it is important that one does not start to decipher the text word by word; rather, one should place the text in its genre (type of text including a journal article, media piece, government position paper, public speech, manual, textbooks, conference paper). Each genre-orientation has a style of its own set of characteristics that identify it—a template of sorts. We can all recognize an advertisement (well—it used to be easy until infomercials were invented), a journal article, a technical manual, a curriculum document, a government position paper--they all have different building blocks that make them unique from other types of documents. One simple example is a scientific journal article that typically includes a problem statement, hypotheses, literature review, theoretical underpinnings, sampling and method, results, analysis and discussion, and conclusions plus recommendations. Because these rules, for how to structure the genre, belong to the institution that owns the genre, the genre becomes a means through which the institution extends power.
looking at the text as a whole, Huckin (1997) recommends, next,
checking out what sort of perspective is being presented—what
angle, slant, or point of view. This is called framing the
details into a coherent whole and can be accomplished by several
techniques, which, if understood, are incredibly
noticed the genre of text and how the message is framed, the
analyst is ready to move onto the more minute levels of analysis:
sentence, phrases, and words. Several CDA techniques have been
developed to facilitate this level of analysis. Examples are drawn
from Huckin (1997):
science approach holds that people need to think about improving
their living conditions rather than accepting and coping with their
present conditions. That improvement is contingent upon people
being conscious of social realities that exploit or dominate them
and then demanding liberation from these forces. A critical science
perspective helps us gain: (a) personal freedom from internal
constraints such as biases or lack of a skill or point of view and
(b) social freedom from external constraints such as oppression,
exclusion, and abuse of power relations (Gentzler, 1999; McGregor,
2003). This paper has
illustrated that there is a method that can be applied to debunk
the hidden ideological meanings behind the written and oral word—it
is critical discourse analysis. CDA does not provide answers to the
problems but does enable one to understand the conditions behind
the specific problem—the deep, ideological roots of the issue
(Palmquist, 1999). It can be carried out in various institutional
settings or on various social, political, and critical issues by
paying attention to the details of what social members actually say
and do (van Dijk, 1999). Starting with the full text, working down
to the individual word level, one can peel back the layers to
reveal the “truth behind the regime”—the profoundly insidious,
invisible power of the written and spoken
My Challenge To You
In plain language, CDA makes visible the way in which institutions and their discourse shape us! FSC professionals work in, and for, institutions including business, government, the media, education, health, and social welfare institutions. Most especially, we work with and for the family as a social institution. All of this discourse shapes us, and we shape it. CD analysts ask the question, “How are we made in our culture?” (Foucault, 2000). As family and consumer scientists, we can approach this two ways: (a) how are we made family and consumer scientists/home economists and (b) how do FCS/home economists affect the way others are made in the culture? CD analysts assume that discourses articulate ideological interests, social formations, and movements within a field (Luke, 1997). It stands to reason, then, that discourse within the field of family and consumer sciences is indicative of prevailing ideologies in the profession. As we examine what our language reflects about our community’s practice and beliefs, we inevitably discover how and why these practices and beliefs are (re)produced, resisted, changed, and transformed (Remlinger, 2002). Brown (1995, 1993) discussed the notion of whether home economics is a community of practice, raised some doubts about this, and then challenged us to critically examine the concepts, beliefs, and values that guide our action (1993, p.193).
journals, newsletters, e-lists, online material, editorials,
conference proceedings, textbooks, book reviews, and lecture
material constitute an order of discourse, a network of
diverse genres and discourse styles (Fairclough, 2002) that make up
the FCS social practice. What would we find if we examined the
words flowing from this home economics professional order of
discourse? What would we find about our professional mission,
values, beliefs, and philosophy relative to power relations, social
conditions, equity, and justice as these impact family well-being?
Are we really part of the solution, or as Brown (1993) so
uncomfortably alleged, part of the problem? The power of the
meanings attached to our, and others’, words merits our analysis of
our genre. Fairclough (1995) and Wadok and Ludwig (1999) caution
that different readers may interpret text differently. At this
stage of the game, this difference can be our strength to help us
expose the deep meanings behind our words, codified practices, and
habits of language. Remember—our words are never neutral. Our words
convey how we see ourselves as a profession, our identity,
knowledge, values, beliefs, and our truths—our discourse permeates
everything we do. We know ourselves (and others know us) by the
positions we construe through our particular discourses and the
kinds of practices they support (Rupert,
arises, what sort of reality and identity does FCS practice seek to
construct and maintain? We have an ethical obligation for our
practice to be honest and mature—something that is possible through
transparency and integrity via critical analysis of our, and
others’, language. Discourses include representations of how things
are and have been, as well as imaginaries—representations of how
things might or should or could be. Most significantly, discourse
can come to inculcate a new way of being, a new identity through
ownership of the discourse (Fairclough, 2002). Language is central
to creating our reality as opposed to merely reflecting
reality in a certain way (Bergquist & Szcepanska,
2002; Borch, 2000; Peskett, 2001).
is amazing that something as simple as looking closely at our
language can be so liberating!
Alvermann, D., Commeyras, M., Young, J. P., Randall, S., & Hinson, D. (1997). Interrupted gendered discursive practices in classroom talk about texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 73-104.
Bergquist, M., & Szcepanska, A. (2002). Creating a common ground: Developing discursive practices. Accessed March 6, 2003. http://www.viktoria.se/results/result_files/191.pdf
Borch, T. (2000). Discourse in the making. Accessed March 12, 2003. http://www.geogr.ku.dk/courses/phd/glob-loc/papers/Borch.pdf
Brown, M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Basic ideas by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
(1995). The concept of community. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM
8(2), 7-20. Accessed March 6, 2003.
February 19). Nova Scotia teachers facing fists, threats.
Accessed March 12, 2003
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
N. (2002). The dialectics of discourse. Accessed March 6,
Fiske, J. (1994). Media matters: Everyday culture and political change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (2000). The essential works of
Foucault (Volume 3, Power). New York: The New
Gentzler, Y. (1999). What is critical theory and critical science? In J. Johnson and C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum: Toward a critical science approach--Yearbook 19. Peoria, IL: McGraw-Hill, Glencoe.
Haberman, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon.
Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2002). Discourses of domination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Huckin, T. N. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text. Accessed March 6, 2003. http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pubs/BR/functionalsec3_6.htm
Lemke, J. L.
(1998). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods and problems. In
K. Tobin and B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science
education. Kulwer. Accessed March 6, 2003.
Luke, A. (1997). Theory and practice in critical science discourse. In L. Saha (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of education. Accessed March 6, 2003. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Luke/SAHA6.html
McGregor, S. (2003). Critical science approach--a primer. Accessed March 12, 2003. http://www.kon.org/cfp/critical_science_primer.pdf
R. (1999). Discourse analysis. Accessed March 6,
(2001). Citizenship and education II: A critical discourse
analysis. Accessed March 6, 2003
K. (2002). Crossing methodological borders: Critical discourse
analysis and dialectology. Accessed March 6, 2003.
(1997). What is post modernism? Accessed March 6, 2003.
(2002). Industry and sustainability. Accessed March 6, 2003.
Sheyholislami, J. (2001). Critical discourse
analysis. Accessed March 6, 2003. http://www.carleton.ca/~jsheyhol/cda.htm
Thompson, M. (2002). ICT, power, and development discourse: A critical analysis. Accessed March 6, 2003. http://www.jims.cam.ac.uk/research/seminar/slides/2003/030529_thompson_ab.pdf
van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum
van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 459-450.
van Dijk, T.
A. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Accessed March 6,
Wodak, R., & Ludwig, C. (Eds). (1999). Challenges in a changing world: Issues in critical discourse analysis. Vienna: Passagenverlag.