La producción de textos escritos

Wetherell (1998) attempted to bridge the gap between the more narrow

definition of context adapted by CADP researchers and broader conceptualization taken

by CDP researchers by calling for a more integrated and synthetic form of discourse

analysis:

My aim was not to endorse this division of labor—conversation analysis then ethnomethodology then post-structuralist analysis or ethnography of communication or critical discourse analysis—but to suggest that for social psychological discursive projects a more synthetic approach is required focused on the development of analytic concepts which work across some of these domains such as, for instance the notion of positioning, interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas, and so on (p. 405).

Despite the tensions between the two branches of DP, Wetherell‟s position is that a

resolution is indeed possible. Wetherell is not advocating strict adherence to either CA

or post-structuralist principles, but instead is advocating a more integrative form of

116

CA practitioners with analysis of the broader, culturally available „interpretative

repertoires‟ that individuals draw on as they construct the world and their subjectivities.

I will demonstrate how researchers can perform more synthetic discourse analysis by

discussing Speer‟s (2001) study of masculinity where she criticizes Edley and Wetherell‟s (1999) study of hegemonic masculinity (see section 2.5.2) on the grounds that the category is not oriented to by the participants; however, I argue that the implicit

nature of hegemony ensures that participants do not explicitly reference it.

Speer (2001) conducted semi-structured interviews with men investigating the

construction of gender in talk about sports and leisure. She identified the ways in which

a group of men constructed masculinity, i.e. „masculinity as extreme‟. One of her

participants, David, constructed the „laddish‟ activities of being „out on the pull‟ and excessive alcohol consumption as „extreme‟. He thus produced an account of a

particular form of masculinity, but then distanced himself from that construction.

According to Speer, David manages the „ideological dilemma‟ (see section 3.4.2) of

constructing a masculine identity while at the same time not presenting himself as a

conformist to a traditional image of masculinity. David maintained that he did not

always go „out on the pull‟, drink excessive amounts of alcohol, and was not

117

„hegemonic masculinity‟ are not participants‟ categories, but instead masculinity is contingent, constructed in different ways dependent upon specific interactional contexts.

In this case, David is managing his accountability as „masculine‟ and simultaneously as

a „non-conformist‟ to traditional masculinity. Speer contends that a participant‟s construction of any type of masculinity functions to manage interactional accountability,

and therefore cannot be taken as evidence of its existence. Therefore, even if a

participant orients to an identity we can gloss as hegemonic masculinity, this is not

evidence that hegemonic masculinity actually exists.

The „extreme‟ form of masculinity that David distances himself from is not specific to this data. As discussed in 2.2.4, Edley and Wetherell (1997) found a similar

construction of masculinity in their group interviews with adolescents. These

participants displayed antipathy toward the „hard lads‟ who were members of the school

rugby team. They faced an ideological dilemma, i.e. to remain accountably „masculine‟

while at the same time to distance themselves from the „hard lad‟ masculinity. In order

to manage this dilemma, they established a categorical difference where the „hard lads‟

were constructed as violent and lacking in individuality. By contrast, the non-rugby

players constructed themselves as capable of engaging in physical violence but

118

hegemonic form of masculinity was reconstructed in order to manage an ideological

dilemma.

Speer‟s (2001) claim that hegemonic masculinity is not a participants‟ category here is indeed correct; nevertheless, this does not mean that what it describes is absent

from talk (Edley, 2001b). Granted, it is unlikely participants will reference hegemonic

masculinity in any explicit way, just as they do not refer to phenomena such as

„adjacency pairs‟ (Sacks et al., 1974) and „preference structure‟ (Pomerantz, 1984). But just as the analyst refers to such terms, not used by conversationalists, we can also make

claims that participants are implicitly orienting to a hegemonic form of masculinity.

Speer is also correct in her assertion that not only do participants‟ alignments

with certain constructions of masculinity change, but so do definitions of masculinity

themselves (see section 2.5). CDP research has demonstrated that variation, not

consistency, is a normative feature of participants discourse (Edley, 2001a; Reynolds,

2008). Accordingly, the same participant aligns himself with different constructions of

masculinity in order to manage the rhetorical demands of that interactional moment

(Edley & Wetherell, 1997; Wetherell & Edley, 1999). Therefore, a participant may shift

between constructing himself as „hyper-masculine‟, „ordinary‟, or „gender

119

CDP research has demonstrated that when researchers engage integrate micro

and macro levels of analysis, the workings of ideologies can become apparent (Edley,

2001a, Reynolds 2008; Wetherell & Potter, 1992). The above discussion illustrates how

a micro versus macro level of analysis need not be a point which divides researchers.

On the contrary, researchers can combine different levels of analysis in order to

strengthen their claims. It is critical to acknowledge that individuals are positioned by

interpretative repertoires, yet they also actively assume positions in relation to them

(Edley and Wetherell, 2008; Wetherell, 1998, 2007). For example, we can extend

Speer‟s usage of the „inference-rich‟ nature of „membership categories‟ (see section 5.3) to point out that David resists constructing an identity around „hegemonic masculinity‟

in order to manage his accountability in the interview. In addition, as CDP research has

demonstrated that individuals present themselves as in favor of gender equality (Edley

& Wetherell, 1999; 2001; Gough, 1998; Wetherell & Potter, 1992; Wetherell, et al.,

1987), David‟s construction of „hard masculinity‟ as „extreme‟ is by no means unique to

his interview. Another interpretation is that David is drawing on the image of the „New Man‟ (Benwell, 2002) as he reconstructs hegemonic masculinity. Despite Speer‟s insistence on restricting analysis to categories that participants „orient to‟, and CDP‟s

120

between our approaches than Speer seems to imagine” (p. 136).

In the next section, I discuss CDP in greater detail which is the central

methodology of my study.