Métodos de alambrado 690-31. Métodos permitidos

Today, no critical social science can function from within any of the isolated bunkers created by disciplinarity over the last century and a half. The dynamics of specialization in general are a function of a ‘civilization domi- nated by machine industry industrialism’: the fetishes of specialization and the production of excess preclude the possibility of understanding either ourselves or our place in history (Innis, 1942, p. 33). A narrowly defined social-scientific disciplinarity also precludes understanding our current civ- ilization, because an historical totality of human values has now become an instantaneously mediated commonplace throughout an interdependently associated humanity.

Seen as artificially separated value sciences, each with authority in their own domain of human experience, the very idea of disciplinary social sci- ence is self-evidently insufficient for comprehending our contemporary world in any critical way. Each object of social science, and each compart- ment of social science, is itself a social subject. Each acts and impacts upon the others according to its institutional axiologies to order and reorder the

Significance of specialized ways of seeing, being and (inter)acting (Fairclough,

2000). Each discipline is a discourse community and a social practice. Each disciplined social science has its roots in a broken language and a common charter: the language is that of broken philosophy and broken understand- ings of value; the charter is that of the whole human condition. Just as it has become more necessary than ever to understand ourselves as part of a global totality – as humans embedded in communities and in the rest of nature – a critical, historically grounded approach to doing so has become more necessary than ever.

If we accept that the human social environment is ultimately coordinated in meaning making, the entry point for any critical science must also be meaning making. However, in seeking interdisciplinarity, CDA risks emu- lating the totalizing grasp of all preceding social sciences. If we accept that social science has fragmented into disciplines along the semantic fault-lines of evaluative meaning, any critical turn in social science will begin with

Cop

yright material fr

om www

.palgra

veconnect.com - licensed to Univer

sitetsbib lioteket i T romso - P algra veConnect - 2011-03-24

a comprehensive theory of value. If we are to make sense of the profound changes we are going through as a species, we must understand the nature of our species – our common humanity – not as merely psychological, eco- nomic, political, ethical or merely discoursal; we must understand the dynamics of meaning making as the dynamics of understanding and asso- ciation. A genuine CDA is merely a beginning for any future critical social science, not an end.

Notes

1. For instance, the Importance and Desirability of a courtroom witness is mediated by assessments for Warrantability; Truth being the institutional standard at stake. 2. It is still called ‘the Divine Science’ by its disciples.

References

Carrel, F. (1907) ‘Has sociology a moral basis?’, International Journal of Ethics, 17(4), pp. 448–54.

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2000) ‘Discourse, social theory, and social research: the discourse of welfare reform’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), pp. 163–95.

Firth, R. (1953) ‘The study of values by social anthropologists’ (The Marrett Lecture, 1953), Man, 53 (October), pp. 146–53.

Gore, A. (2000) ‘Remarks as prepared for delivery by Vice President Al Gore, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Benezer Baptist Church, Atlanta’. Washington: Whitehouse Publications. (http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/2000/1/18/15.text.1.)

Graham, P. (1999) ‘Critical systems theory: a political economy of language, thought, and technology’, Communication Research, 26(4), pp. 482–507.

Graham, P. (2001) ‘Space: irrealis objects in technology policy and their role in the creation of a new political economy’, Discourse & Society, 12(6), pp. 761–88. Graham, P. (2002a) ‘Predication and propagation: a method for analysing evaluative

meanings in technology policy’, TEXT, 22(2).

Graham, P. (2002b) ‘Hypercapitalism: new media, language, and social perceptions of value’, Discourse & Society, 13(2), pp. 227–49.

Graham, P. and McKenna, B. (2000) ‘A theoretical and analytical synthesis of autopoiesis and sociolinguistics for the study of organisational communication’,

Social Semiotics, 10(1), pp. 41–59.

Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City. London: Blackwell.

Hayes, E.C. (1905) ‘Sociological construction lines I’, American Journal of Sociology, 10(5), pp. 623–42.

Hayes, E.C. (1918) ‘Sociological as ethics’, American Journal of Sociology, 24(3), pp. 289–302.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1816 [1995]) Lectures on the History of Philosophy (Vol. 1): Greek

Philosophy to Plato. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Huxley, T. (1893) Method and Results: Essays. London: Macmillan.

Innis, H.A. (1942) ‘The newspaper in economic development’, Journal of Economic

History, 2, Issue supplement: ‘The tasks of economic history’, pp. 1–33.

Cop

yright material fr

om www

.palgra

veconnect.com - licensed to Univer

sitetsbib lioteket i T romso - P algra veConnect - 2011-03-24

Jessop, B. and Sum, N. (2001) ‘Pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary perspectives’,

New Political Economy, 6(1), pp. 89–101.

Kennedy, E. (1979) ‘ “Ideology” from Destutt de Tracy to Marx’, Journal of the History

of Ideas, 40(3), pp. 353–68.

Langholm, O. (1998) The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought: Antecedents of

Choice and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lasswell, H.D. (1927) ‘The theory of political propaganda’, American Political Science

Review, 21(3), pp. 627–31.

Lasswell, H.D. (1941) ‘World attention survey’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 5(3), pp. 456–62. Lemke, J.L. (1995) Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor &

Francis.

Lemke, J.L. (1998) ‘Resources for attitudinal meaning: evaluative orientations in text semantics’, Functions of Language, 5(1), pp. 33–56.

Lemke, J.L. (forthcoming) ‘Across the scales of time: artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems’, Mind, Culture, and Activity.

Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marcuse, H. and Neumann, F. (1942 [1998]) ‘A history of the doctrine of social change’, in D. Kellner (ed.), Technology, War and Fascism: Herbert Marcuse: Collected

Papers of Herbert Marcuse (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.

Martin, J.R. (2000) ‘Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English’, in S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–75.

Marx, K. (1843 [1972]) ‘For a ruthless criticism of everything existing’ [letter to Arnold Ruge], in R.C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx–Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 7–10. Marx, K. (1844 [1975]) ‘Economic and philosophical manuscripts’, in K. Marx,

(R. Livingstone and G. Benton, trans.), Early Writings. London: Penguin, pp. 279–400.

Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft) (M. Nicolaus, trans.). London: Penguin.

Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realisation of the

Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Mind (1876) ‘Prefatory Material’ [editorial], 1(1), No. 1, pp. 1–6.

Neill, T.P. (1949) ‘The Physiocrats’ concept of economics’, Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 63(4), pp. 532–53.

Orwell, G. (1941 [1957]) ‘England your England’, in G. Orwell, Inside the Whale and

Other Essays. London: Penguin, pp. 63–90.

Paul, D. (1984), ‘Eugenics and the Left’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 45(4), pp. 567–90.

Parry, C.E. (1921) ‘A revaluation of economic theory’, American Economic Review, 11(1), Papers and proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 123–31.

Perry, R.B. (1916) ‘Economic value and moral value’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 30(3), pp. 443–85.

Randall, J.H. Jr, (1940) ‘The development of scientific method in the school of Padua’,

Journal of the History of Ideas, 1(2), pp. 177–206.

Russell, B. (1946 [1991]) History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political

and Social Circumstance from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: Routledge.

Silverstone, R. (1999) Why Study the Media? London: Sage.

Smith, M. (1886) ‘Introduction: the domain of political science’, Political Science

Quarterly, 1(1), pp. 1–8.

Cop

yright material fr

om www

.palgra

veconnect.com - licensed to Univer

sitetsbib lioteket i T romso - P algra veConnect - 2011-03-24

Thibault, P.J. (forthcoming) ‘Interpersonal meaning and the discursive construction of action, attitude and values: the global modal program of one text’, in P. Fries, M. Cummings, D. Lockwood and W. Sprueill (eds), Relations and Functions in

Language and Discourse. London: Cassell.

Tylor, E.B. (1877) ‘Mr. Spencer’s Principles of Sociology’, Mind, 2(6), pp. 141–56. Ward, L.F. (1895) ‘The place of sociology among the sciences’, American Journal of

Sociology, 1(1), pp. 16–27.

Ware, N.J. (1931) ‘The Physiocrats: a study in economic rationalization’, American

Economic Review, 21(4), pp. 607–19.

Wodak, R. (2000) ‘Does sociolinguistics need social theory? New perspectives in Critical Discourse Analysis’, Keynote address, SS2000, Bristol University, 27 April.

Cop

yright material fr

om www

.palgra

veconnect.com - licensed to Univer

sitetsbib lioteket i T romso - P algra veConnect - 2011-03-24

7