This study as announced in Chapter 1 approaches globalization by taking a stance that discourse as particular ways of representation constructs the global economy through (cultural) political economy. This adopted position is derived from the standpoint that economic and political objects are socially constructed (Jessop, 2004; Fairclough, 2006; see also Section 1.7). These objects include economic system, the role of management, financial institutions and division of labor. From these constructed objects emerge social relations—the relations between objects and subjects, bringing people and their economy, culture into interaction (Jessop, 2004). The interactions between subjects and objects involves discourse that enables to sustain relations, represent beliefs and values as well as construct identities as individuals, agencies and even nationalities. Fairclough (2006) distinguishes social structures, social practices and social events as different
47 levels of abstraction, where social structures represent the long-term social conditions, social events are instances of social life and social practices are institutionalized ways of doing things. All these levels of social life have semiotic moments which constitute their discursive aspect. At the level of social practices, he sees orders of discourse at work which are constituted by discourse, genres and styles (Fairclough, 2003). While discourse relates to the particular way of representation, genre relates to the level of interaction and style to a way of being, thus characterizing identity aspects.
Discourse whose function to represent some particular part of the social life provides us with resources in dealing with how the notions of globalization, its systems of operation, success and failure are politically and culturally embedded. Discourse allows us to see how a system of world economy, such as flows of capital and investment is embodied by a certain fixed framework of economy. We can see the processes of recontextualization of disciplines from economy to politic, rescaling of spaces (regional, nation-state) and restructuring of economic agendas, national identities and systems of economic operation in discourse.
Different from the descriptive paradigm of ideology as positions and beliefs, CDA treats ideology as representation of power, dominance, and legitimation by social groups (Eagleton, 1991; van Dijk, 1998 and Fairclough, 2003). For example, the new global economy is bound up with transformations of language and ideology in many different ways by different individuals and agencies (e.g. Giddens 1990). These include emerging tensions between social politic—state-based and corporate identities—and discourse practices between local, national and supra-national interests as well as between hybridity and uniformity of practices.
48 Hybridization is a separate form of an existing practice, but which creates a new form when it comes in contact which other forms and ultimately gives rise to a new practice (Pieterse, 1995). For example, the practice of the systems of political economy in certain states will result in the policies of economy from which new practices, new texts, discourses and identification will emerge (Fairclough, 2010). These new forms of discourse within political economy and practices will dominate other discourses— generally counter-discourses—and there is a possibility of becoming hegemonic discourse particularly when it has obtained the consent from the society.
Global economy is politically determined and embedded in discourse (Fairclough, 2006). It is an ideologically motivated practice of globalization involving discourse which is produced and naturalized by the proponent states, globalist individuals, agencies and organizations. Thus if we want to figure out the global economy as a social issue, which is ideologically and politically motivated we can refer to the discursive aspects of that issue by examining concrete forms of texts within which the social problem is exposed and represented.
Ideologies can be identified in texts (see Section 3.3 of the next chapter for this standpoint). This is so because ideology can be invested in texts, which can be used by discourse producers to exercise power, enact dominance and impose legitimation (Fairclough, 2001; van Dijk, 1998b). One example is the ideology that is enacted by the system of global economy that competition, flexibility and interconnectedness should be imposed if a state wants to survive economically and politically. One way of promoting and exposing this ideology is through the use of language–discourse, enacted by states leaders in speeches in summits or forums, by means of articles in newspapers by government think-tanks, economists, political analysts or members of trade
49 organizations, such as WTO and international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF (we shall discuss these organizations in the coming sections).
An ideology in texts such as capitalism or neo liberalism does not say that it is ideological. Rather it is usually embedded in texts and therefore it is presupposed, needing a type of assumption for interpretation of the proposition of texts (Fairclough, 2003). For example, discourse of global economy may presuppose that competitiveness should be desirable in a system of free market. A text may presuppose that the factuality of global economy, such as the reality of free trade and global flows of capital and investment is to be taken for granted. It is a fact which is unavoidable and unquestionable in the age of modernity (Giddens, 1990). This process of universalizing meanings does ideological work. Politically speaking, there are agencies that determine the manifestation processes of this ideological work.