{"id":1098,"date":"2008-10-08T16:52:30","date_gmt":"2008-10-08T20:52:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=1098"},"modified":"2008-10-09T12:09:58","modified_gmt":"2008-10-09T16:09:58","slug":"discourse-theory-methodology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2008\/10\/08\/discourse-theory-methodology\/","title":{"rendered":"Discourse Theory Methodology"},"content":{"rendered":"

Howarth, David. \u201cApplying Discourse Theory: the Method of Articulation\u201d in Discourse Theory in European Politics<\/em>. David Howarth and Jacob Torfing (eds). Palgrave: Great Britain. 2005., pp. 316-349.<\/span><\/p>\n

The application of post-Marxist discourse theory (PMDT)\u00a0to empirical objects of investigation<\/em><\/p>\n

Discourse Theory and the Question of Method<\/span><\/p>\n

PMDT is best understood as a research programme or paradigm, and not just an empirical theory in the narrow sense of the term.\u00a0 It thus consists of a system of ontological assumptions, theoretical concepts and methdological precepts, and not just a set of falsifiable propositions designed to explain and predict phenomena such as the behaviour of the capitalist state, or different forms and logics of collective action (317).<\/p>\n

– discourse theory is to be differentiated from discourse analysis
\n– discourse theory does not overlap with the different varieties of discourse analysis
\n– discourse theory is not just a toolkit to analyse ‘language in use’<\/p>\n

as the conduct of discourse analysis is only meaningful within a particular social and political theory, alongside its core ontological assumptions and overall political purposes.\u00a0 At most, therefore, the various tools of discourse analysis constitute one particular set of techniques<\/strong> that can help us to understand and explain empirical phenomena which have already been constituted as meaningful objects of analysis.\u00a0 They do not exhaust the concept of discourse theory itself (318).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

– discourse theory is “problem-driven”: akin to Foucault’s technique of problematization<\/strong> in that it begins with a set of pressing political and ethical problems in the present, before seeking to analyse the historical and structural conditions which gave rise to them, while furnishing the means for their critique and transgression.<\/p>\n

this method is not simply a matter of analysing ‘behaviour or ideas, nor societies and their “ideologies”, but the problematizations<\/strong> through which being offers itself to be, necessarily, thought \u2014 and the practices <\/strong>on the basis of which these problematizations are formed.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In so doing Foucault synthesizes his archeological and genealogical moments of analysis:<\/p>\n

Archaeological<\/span>: makes possible the examination of ‘forms themselves’, describing the rules that condition the elements of a particular discourse<\/strong> \u2014its objects, subjects, concepts, and strategies \u2014 in a given period say, the discourse of ‘madness’ or ‘illness’ in the nineteenth century, archaeology provides the means to delimit research objects (318).<\/p>\n

Genealogical<\/span>: accounts for their contingent emergence and production, analyses their constitution by recounting the historical practices from which they were constructed, enabling research to show the contingency of identities and practices and foreground possibilities foreclosed by the dominant logics.<\/p>\n

Finally while the focus of research is the interrogation of a specific problematized phenomenon, it is important to stress the these problems are not specified in a completely independent and atheoretical fashion. On the contrary, as against empiricism or rationalism, the emergence and constitution of research problems always presupposes the ontological assumptions and categories<\/strong> of discourse theory for their initial discernment and description (319).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Howarth, David. \u201cApplying Discourse Theory: the Method of Articulation\u201d in Discourse Theory in European Politics. David Howarth and Jacob Torfing (eds). Palgrave: Great Britain. 2005., pp. 316-349. The application of post-Marxist discourse theory (PMDT)\u00a0to empirical objects of investigation Discourse Theory and the Question of Method PMDT is best understood as a research programme or paradigm, … Continue reading “Discourse Theory Methodology”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-logics","category-methodology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1098"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1098\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1100,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1098\/revisions\/1100"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}