DISCOURSE IN A CONTEXT OF POLITICAL POWER RELATIONS

Keywords: discourse, political power, critical discourse-analysis, political consciousness

Abstract

The object of this research is modern political power relations. The discourse is studied in the traditions of postmodernism, including as a ‘picture of the world’, cognitive model, worldview and the limits of what is possible in the thinking and behaviour of individuals. According to the discourse theories, all objects of reality are discursive, that is, any phenomenon is inscribed in a context that gives it full meaning. All objects of the surrounding world can acquire different meanings (or identities) depending on the specific circumstances in which they are immersed. Discourse is a way of ordering reality, a mechanism for determining the values of people. The subject of power in this context is understood as a collective or individual actor who has special access to the discourse and can control it. According to Foucault’s theory, discourse can be identified with power.

This research finds that discourse is the most efficient power resource because it touches every part of a person’s existence. The paper explains the problem from both sides: as the development of political discourse theories on the one hand and as the innovative research of modern power relations in a context of discursive technologies on the other hand. The research is based on the works of M. Foucault, T. Van Dijk, L. Althusser, A. Gramsci, E. Laclau and Sh. Mouff, all of whom measured discourse in a variety of ways. Thus, in our research, we used such theoretical methods for analysis, classification and comparison.

The analysis of discourse undertaken here has extended our knowledge of political power relations. The findings in this study provide a new understanding of discourse as a cognition that actualises many questions for further investigations.

The findings may be of interest for both scholars and students who study political power in general or discourse as a picture of the world in particular.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Vladyslav Andrushko, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60 Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, 01033, Ukraine

Ph. D. Student PhD student, Department of Political Science.

References

Andrushko, V. 2021. “Politychna vlada: analiz innovatsiinykh pidkhodiv (Political power: analysis of innovative approaches)”, Visnyk NIuU imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. Seriia: Filosofiia, filosofiia prava, politolohiia, sotsiolohiia 2 (49): 153-168 (in Ukrainian).

Ajdukevich, K. 1996. “Kartina mira i ponyatijny`j apparat (Picture of the world and conceptual apparatus)”, Filosofiya nauki. Vy`p. 2: Gnoseologicheskie i logiko-metodologicheskie problemy`. M.: IF RAN: 231-253 (in Russian).

Mikhalyova, O. L. 2008. Politicheskij diskurs: Speczifika manipulyativnogo vozdejstviya (Political discourse: Specifics of manipulative influence). М.: Knizhny`j dom “Librokom” (in Russian).

Rockel, Angela 2000. Submitted in fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Otago.

Sossyur, F. 1990. Zametki po obshhej lingvistike (Notes on general linguistics). M.: Izdatel`skaya gruppa «Progress» (in Russian).

Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. Problema teksta v lingvistike, filologii i drugikh gumanitarny`kh naukakh. Opy`t filosofskogo analiza (The problem of text in linguistics, philology and other humanities. The experience of the philosophy of analysis). M.: Iskusstvo (in Russian).

Foucault, M. 2019. Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Penguin UK.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. 2014. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London : Verso.

Gurin, K. E. 2014. “Analiz diskursov kak sposob izucheniya soczial`ny`kh struktur, identichnostej i proczessov v teorii E`rnesto Laklo i Shantelya Muff. Kul`tura, lichnost`, obshhestvo v sovremennom mire: metodologiya, opy`t e`mpiricheskogo issledovaniya (Discourse analysis as a way of studying social structures, identities and processes in the theory of Ernesto Laclos and Chantelle Mouffe. Culture, personality, society in the modern world: methodology, experience of empirical research),” Yuridichna nauka: 185-192 (in Russian).

Al`tyusser, L. 2011. “Ideologiya i ideologicheskie apparaty` gosudarstva (zametki dlya issledovaniya) (Ideology and ideological apparatus of the state (notes for research),” Neprikosnovenny`j zapas. Vip. 3 URL: https://magazines.gorky.media/nz/2011/3/ideologiya-i-ideologicheskie-apparaty-gosudarstva.html (in Russian).

Ebert, T. 1985. “The Romance of Patriarchy: Ideology, Subjectivity and Postmodern Feminist Cultural theory,” Cultural Critique 10: 19-57.

Grant, J. S. 1995. Fundamental feminism: contesting the core concepts of feminist theory. New York: Resources for Feminist Research, 24(1/2).

Eagleton, T. 1988 “The Subject of Literature,” Cultural Critique: 10.

Hix, H. L. 1995. Spirits hovering over the ashes: Legacies of postmodern theory. Suny Press.

Gramshi, A. 1991. Tyuremny`e tetradi (Prison notebooks). Grazhdanskoe obshhestvo. URL: https://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Gramshi,tetradi.pdf (in Russian).

Aronowitz, S. 1981. The Crisis in Historical Materialism: Class Politics and Culture in Marxist Theory. New York 1.

Shestov, L. 1991. “Apofeoz bespochvennosti: opy`t adogmaticheskogo my`shleniya (Apotheosis of groundlessness: the experience of adogmatic thinking)“, Direct MEDIA (in Russian).

Van Dijk, T. A. 2017. “Socio-cognitive discourse studies”. Routledge: 26-43.

Published
2021-07-10
How to Cite
Andrushko, V. (2021). DISCOURSE IN A CONTEXT OF POLITICAL POWER RELATIONS. The Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Issues of Political Science, 39, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.26565/2220-8089-2021-39-04
Section
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES