Discursive Interpretation of Power Processes in the Internet Space: Discourse Analysis of E. Laclaude and C. Mouffe vs Critical Discourse Analysis of R. Vodak
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-6521-2024-53-03Keywords:
discourse analysi, discourse, power, Internet, E. Laclau and C. Mouffe, R. Vodak, critical discourse analysis, discursive-historical approach, discursive theory of hegemony, (re)production of power, Internet communications, discursive interpretationAbstract
The article attempts to construct a synthetic discursive interpretation of power processes in cyberspace based on a combination of E. Laclau and C. Mouffe's discursive theory of hegemony with R. Vodak's discursive-historical approach. It is noted that the constructed approach allows combining critical analysis of linguistic and semiotic practices with a macro-level vision of discursive struggle for hegemony, providing a holistic understanding of power processes in the digital environment. In particular, after analyzing the relevant theoretical literature, the author determines that the discursive-historical approach allows for the identification of specific linguistic and semiotic strategies, which the author classifies as nominations, predications, arguments, perspectivizations, intensifications, and mitigations. The article describes how users produce and disseminate meaning on the internet through these strategies, taking into account the socio-political context of their emergence. At the same time, the article demonstrates how the discursive theory of hegemony by E. Laclau and C. Mouffe opens up the possibility of interpreting these practices as elements of broader processes of hegemony, where online discourses function as fields of antagonistic struggle for the establishment of dominant frameworks of interpretation and identification. The article pays particular attention to the fact that this synthesis makes it possible to trace how specific discursive practices on the Internet not only reproduce certain ideological positions, but also acquire significance in the broader antagonistic struggle of discourses, where social identities and order are constantly being constructed. The article forms a methodological foundation for further empirical research on processes of power in cyberspace, ensuring the integration of local discursive practices and global structures of hegemony, as well as opening up the possibility for a comprehensive analysis of strategies for (re)producing power and constructing social identities in the virtual environment.
References
Бойко Д. М. Речі в інструментарії символічного насильства в постсучасному суспільстві: дис. ... канд. соціол. наук: 22.00.01. Харківський національний університет імені В. Н. Каразіна. Харків, 2019.
Грамші А. В'язничні зошити. Вибрані записи. Київ: Вперед, 2014. 241 с.
Литовченко А. Д. Структурно-діяльнісна концепція дискурса: дис. ... канд. соціол. наук: 22.00.01. Харківський національний університет імені В. Н. Каразіна. Харків, 2004
Нехаєнко, О. В. Політична коректність як процес: дискурси та практики: дис. … д-ра філософії в галузі соціології / Харківський національний університет імені В. Н. Каразіна. Харків, 2023.
Baudrillard J. Seduction. London : Palgrave Macmillan, 1991.
Bourdieu P. Sur le pouvoir symbolique. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 1977. № 32(3). P. 405-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1977.293828
Fairclough, N., Wodak, R. Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London, 1997. Vol. 2 P. 258–284.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
Howarth, D., Glynos, J., & Griggs, S. Discourse, explanation and critique. Critical Policy Studies. 2016. №10(1). P. 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1131618
Jorgensen, M. W., Phillips, L. J. Discourse Analysis As Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2002.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. Hegemony & socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Routledge, 1985.
Marcuse, H.. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston : Beacon Press, 1964.
McCarron, G. Lecture 8: Hegemony and rhetoric analysis. Scholarly and Research Communication. 2021. №12(1). P. 3-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2021v12n1a377
Thomassen, L. Hegemony, populism and democracy: Laclau and Mouffe today (review article). Revista Española de Ciencia Política. 2016. №40. P. 161-176.
Titscher S., Meyer M., Vetter E., Wodak R. Methods of text and discourse analysis: in search of meaning. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2000.
Torfing, J. Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. Discourse theory in european politics. London, 2005. P. 1-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523364_1.
Wodak, R. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam, 2011. P. 50-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.04wod
Wodak, R., Meyer, M. Methods of critical discourse analysis. Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. London, 2001, P. 14-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.d4
Wodak R., Meyer M. Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. Methods of critical discourse studies. 3rd ed. London, 2015. P. 1-22.
Wodak R., de Cillia R., Reisigl M., Liebhart K. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Žižek S. Cyberspace, or the unbearable closure of being. Endless night. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. P. 96-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520918603-005