1. Introduction
In this chapter, I will discuss the importance of analysing language and the way that it is expressed in order to demonstrate that the study of discourse is “central in constructing identity and in constructing as well as reflecting social change” (McKinney 2007a:215). I will expand on Feminist Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis (FPDA) and on how this method of data analysis differs from the more popular method of discourse analysis, namely Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Lastly, I will argue why FPDA was the chosen tool of analysis by referring to my methodology and the aim of my research.
2. Why Discourse Analysis?
In order to have a better understanding of FPDA, it is important firstly to understand what discourse analysis is and why linguists use this tool in their research. Language plays a more important role than merely as a form of communication. Through the method of discourse analysis, linguists are able to analyse written and spoken text to provide insight into how we use words in order to organise and shape our lives and experiences. It is not in only the words that we use that we can gain insight into how people shape their experiences, but also in the manner in which we organise meaning through our spoken and written texts (McKinney 2007a:215).
There are, however, many different approaches to how to analyse language use. For example, some linguists choose to study the „content‟ of the language being used in order to gain perspective on the issues or the themes that are being discussed in spoken or written text. There are also linguists that prefer a more generative approach to discourse analysis. By analysing the structure, or the grammar of language, this type of discourse analysis allows for the study on how these structures function together in order to help to make meaning of specific contexts (Gee 2010:8).
The question remains as to why we choose to analyse discourse. The descriptive discourse analysts answer this question by stating that the reason for discourse analysis is for the
43 purpose of describing how language works in order to understand it. It can be described as a similar act to that which physicists perform, in which physicists try to describe how the physical world works in order to understand our world. The critical discourse analysts will, however, provide a different answer to this question. The goal of a critical discourse analyst is not only to describe how language works in order to understand the aspects of language themselves, but rather to gain deeper explanations as to how language can be used in order to gain perspective on “social or political issues, problems, and controversies in the world” (Gee 2010:9). Critical discourse analysts tend to share the belief that by pursing the purely descriptive analysis of language, we are evading our social and political responsibility. Gee (2010) argues in his book titled “An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method”, that all forms of discourse analysis need to be critical, not because discourse analysts need to be concerned with society and politics, but because language itself has its place in society and politics. He goes on to explain that language “gains its meaning from the „game‟ or practice of which it is a part and which it is enacting” (Gee 2010:9). He further argues that:
That such „games‟ or practices inherently involve potential social goods and the distribution of social goods, which I have defined as central to the realm of “politics.” Thus, any full description of any use of language would have to deal with “politics.” Beyond this general point, language is a key way we humans make and break our world, our institutions, and our relationships through how we deal with social goods. Thus, discourse analysis can illuminate problems and controversies in the world. It can illuminate issues about the distribution of social goods, who gets helped, and who gets harmed.
(Gee 2010:10)
This extract provides the clearest explanation as to why I chose discourse analysis for my research. Dealing with the topic of race, inclusion and exclusion, discourse analysis allows for me to illuminate any problems that exist within our educational institutions and I can provide insight into those students who are being harmed and those who might need more help to make their voices heard.
44
3. Feminist Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis vs Critical Discourse
Analysis
FDPA is a method of analysis that has largely been used in the field of identifying gender bias. It is only in recent years that this method of analysis has been used in areas such as classroom discourse (e.g. McKinney 2007a, 2007b). For the purpose of this study, I will focus on how FPDA has been transformed from the gender inequality field to that of research on diversity in the classroom. It is for this reason that in this section I will be referring largely to the work done by Baxter (2008) who has lead the research on how FPDA can be used in analysing classroom discourse (Baxter 2002, 2003). I will first outline the core differences between FPDA and CDA.
There are many approaches to discourse analysis, but of all of these, FPDA has the most in common with CDA. There are many similarities to these methods of discourse analysis, but the more important point lies in the differences that these two fields have. These two methods of discourse analysis have “contrasting outlooks on the world and seek divergent outcomes” (Baxter 2008:2). CDA formed from post-Marxism ideologies, where FPDA‟s theoretical roots are based in postmodernism, where the goal of the latter is more epistemological rather than ideological like CDA (Baxter 2008:2).
CDA, as defined by Fairclough (2001:123), is viewed as:
An analysis of the dialectical relationships between semiosis (including language) and other elements of social practices. Its particular concern is with the radical changes that are taking place in contemporary social life, with how semiosis figures within processes of change, and with shifts in the relationship between semiosis and other social elements within networks of practices.
Baxter (2008) highlights three points that form the three primary differences between FPDA and CDA. The first of these is that “FPDA does not have an emancipatory agenda, but a „transformative quest‟” (Baxter 2008:3). What this means is that CDA tends to serve more of an ideological agenda, as stated above, and that CDA is more committed to focusing on social problems that exist in our community, thereby giving a voice to those that form part of the oppressed. FPDA, however, cannot fully support a theoretical or political „mission‟ that could one day become its own “grand narrative” (Baxter 2008:3). What FPDA can do,
45 however, is provide support for “small scale, bottom-up, localised social transformations that are vital in its larger quest to challenge dominant discourses that inevitably become grand narratives” (Baxter 2008:3). This extract provides one of my first reasons behind selecting FPDA as the method of data analysis for my research topic.
In the study that I am conducting is a rather small case study which primarily focuses on the students‟ perspective of the macro-environment that surrounds them and the effects that it has on the way in which they use language to make sense of this world around them. My aim for this research project is not to make political points, but rather to highlight the need for social transformation in regards to the manner in which we conceptualise race.
FPDA is also seen to give a voice to those who are very often overlooked in society. It is for this reason that FPDA is better suited “to small-scale, ethnographic case studies in which subjects have some degree of agency to change their conditions” (Baxter 2008:3). This aspect of FPDA is the second reason that I decided to choose this form of discourse analysis for my research. In my previous study, I focused solely on the voices of the marginalised students in the school. I only interviewed the students that were indeed marginalised in a space that they were free to open up about the issues that concerned them. In the current research project, however, I conducted classroom interviews with a variety of students. By using the FPDA approach, I hope to show how the voices of students that are often overlooked come forth in the classroom discourse and that the environment that is created allowed the students to feel safe about opening up on the topics of race.
The second differentiating point that Baxter (2008:3) provides, is that “FPDA believes in complexity rather than polarisation of subjects of study”. As stated before, CDA has an emancipatory agenda. Due to this point, CDA tends to polarise the subjects that are being studied into two groups − the people, groups and systems that have power of other and those people who then are less powerful. FPDA, on the other hand, is concerned not to polarise its subjects in this manner, but rather to suggest that the constant interaction of competing discourses will show that the subjects flow between positions and discourses of power and powerlessness. FPDA can therefore assist the researcher in pinpointing when speakers‟ discourses shift between these two levels and it can also provide insight into why there are these sudden shifts of power (Baxter 2008:4).
The last differentiating point between FPDA and CDA that is offered by Baxter (2008:4) is that “FPDA is anti-materialist in tendency”. One of the more popular characteristics of CDA
46 is that it assumes that discourse works dialectically, meaning that the discourse is shaped by real or material structures, situations or events. Contrastingly, FPDA uses an anti-materialist stance. What this means is that FPDA assumes that when we are born, we enter this world that is “infused by competing discourses” (Baxter 2008:4) and we make sense of this world by using discourses of pre-existing knowledge which has a constant influence on our experiences and thoughts. This point also served as a reason for my selection of this form of data analysis, but more due to a personal opinion and experience. As mentioned before, I grew up in England where I was constantly surrounded by different races, religions and cultures. Growing up, I was not aware of the fact that people where regarded as „other‟. However, when moving to South Africa and being placed in the South African schooling system, I was surrounded by discourses of race. Whether it was in the environments surrounding me (family and friends) or the fact that it is taught in schools, I suddenly became aware of the discourse of the „other‟. I selected FPDA in order to see whether this could also be true for others than myself.
In conclusion, FPDA provides a platform for multiple voices and accounts to be illuminated, a definition that is described by Bakhtin (1981) as “polyphony”. FPDA aims to include the voices of those that are seen as the minority, and it allows these voices to be heard amongst the voices of more openly recognised accounts. This in turn allows for those who are usually silenced to be heard (Baxter 2008:5).
47