De/con/structure
<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6077932889256660" crossorigin="anonymous"></script> Bernhard Forchtner writes “it seems as if critical discourse analysts have understood critique mainly against the background of their progressive consensus” . . . “The discourse-historical approach is . . . concerned with language in use and perceives discourse as, a form of, social practice [which] implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institutions and social structures which frame it” According to this approach the language we speak is actually action, it is behavior that can be directed at another and guides us through the course of our lives. Language is history; the development of history is more than just informed by language but is language and we create a social reality through discourse. Our world of ideas and language determines the structure of our institutions. This structural approach is often challenged by “scholars” who use the deconstructive method tear down the very words we live by; this method is based on the works of Jacques Derrida and Martin Heidegger, who sought to expose the ineptness of language to capture reality. Accordingly, reality is only words playing off of each other. As elegant as deconstructionism has been, and how it has been used to expose injustices, has been admirable. This does not insinuate though that structure in our world is bad, but rather realizing the limits of language is helpful. Critical discourse analysis is “biased—and proud of it,” but “always argued against the (re)production of inequality” and as such uses different methods including deconstructionism.
Comments