Throwback: Critical Discourse Analysis

I have been percolating this post for the past two weeks, so it is a little out of context now. To be frank, critical discourse analysis makes me want to pull my hair out. I also found that after reading the van Dijk, Fairclough and Knight I was left wondering how to go about critical discourse analysis. I have definitions to the brim of what it is, why it is useful, and it’s importance to understanding social inequalities.

Chaya used Fairclough’s definition to guide her lecture. He describes critical discourse analysis as a:

[D]iscourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony (Fairclough, 1993, p. 136).

I am taking a class on information policy and I think a critical discourse analysis approach or perspective would be interesting when reviewing copyright law. We were recently discussing copyright law how it privileges a Western context and lacks consideration of traditional knowledge. And the week before last we were discussing censorship. However, it is tricky because within this class we have been warned not to let our personal values or biases affect our research. Yet according to vanDijk (1993) “critical discourse analysts (should) take an explicit socio-political stance: they spell out their point of view, perspective, principles and aims, both within their discipline and within society at large” (p. 252). For example, during our discussion of censorship we focused on social media in China. In 2005, Microsoft complied with Chinese censorship laws and took down edgy journalistic blogger Zhao Jing’s blog. In response Western activists, researchers and even society in general cried foul. However, the blogging community in China understood the sacrifice, because if Microsoft hadn’t complied then they would have lost the communication platform entirely. "Powerful socio-political change can be expected to emerge as a result of the millions of online conversations taking place daily on the Chinese Internet: conversations that manage to stay comfortably within the confines of censorship" (MacKinnon, 2008, p.45). So when I think about this example with a critical discourse analysis perspective, choosing to take up the specific agenda of censorship in China will my research be well met? This is where I get a bit confused. I am so focused on censorship that I fail to see Chinese bloggers pushing boundaries everyday within the censorship framework. I also want to clarify that I am not saying I think everything is peachy keen in China in regards to censorship, I just wonder about checks and balances in critical discourse analysis.

In relation to my research project, I am examining how the governments of three Pacific Island Countries are using ICTs to deliver services and promote social and economic development. I am using Community Informatics as the framework for my research. What does this have to do with critical analysis discourse? Well, according to van Dijk (1993) critical discourse analysis “is primarily interested and motivated by pressing social issues, which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis” (p. 252). In an alternate version of my project I could explore the discourse of social and political development in the South Pacific. I think.

Beyond approaching topics with a critical discourse analysis perspective, how do you conduct critical discourse analysis? As I mentioned above, I was left wanting. van Dijk in a way addresses my questions in his section on “Reproducing racism in the British House of Commons.” I really wanted someone to come out and say you could use Spotfire to preform sentiment analysis and glean new insights—or something of the like.

Is anyone using (or used in the past) critical discourse analysis?