Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a linguistic field of study which “in its very aims seeks to reveal the structures, locations and effects of power” (Kress 1993, 169). Power is in a very crucial position for critical discourse analysts and Fairclough gives one definition of power as follows: “the power to project one’s practices as universal and ‘common sense’” (1989, 33). Fairclough calls this the definition for ideological power, which is the focus of this thesis. However, according to Fairclough there are different forms of power, such as power through coercion and “power through the manufacture of
consent” (1989,3–4, emphasis in original). The latter form of power is linguistic power
which can overlap with ideological power because ideology is produced and reproduced in discourse (1989, 33). Van Dijk defines “social power in terms of control” (2008, 9, emphases in original), meaning specifically control of one group over other groups and their members. Van Dijk goes onto specify that discourse and power are related, not unlike Fairclough, and that the prevailing discourse(s) are controlled by powerful entities, such as “the state, the police, the mass media or a business corporation” (ibid.) As can be seen, power is an ambigious term, which has been used broadly but also in a very precise manner when linked to forms of power, such as social power or expert
power. In order to disambiguate, I will use a synthesis of Fairclough’s and van Dijk’s definition of power: Power to project one’s practices and beliefs as universal and the practice of power is control, mainly control of ”one group over other groups and their members” (van Dijk 2008, 9)
So in this thesis power can be understood through the means of control and the ability to control the actions and thoughts directly and indirectly and to make one’s beliefs, values and practices universal and common sense. When discussing the media, it is clear that they are exercising control by manufacturing consent. Thus, there is a clear connection between media discourse and power and control.
In CDA, there is a history of special focus on social problems and social issues, especially in how they appear in racist discourse and other ideological discourses (van Dijk 2008, 5–6). What differentiates CDA from other types of social studies is that critical discourse analysts “recognize and reflect about their own research commitments and position in society” (van Dijk 2008, 6), meaning that they explicitly take a stance on social issues. Van Dijk criticizes other fields of social study for being seemingly neutral, while praising critical discourse analysts for being invested in their work and empowering disenfranchised groups of people (2008, 6-7).
According to van Dijk there is no one unitary theoretical framework for CDA, but there are theoretical frameworks closely linked to CDA (2001, 353). Thus there is also no strict methodology for CDA, instead there is a focus on how “unequal power relations are maintained and reproduced through language use” (Weninger 2008, 145). CDA, according to van Dijk, “uses any method that is relevant to the aims of its research projects and such methods are largely those used in discourse studies generally (2008, 2). CDA has been successfully employed in studies which examine media discourse because of its emphasis on power and language.
Van Dijk also goes to suggest that instead of using the name of Critical Discourse Analysis, the field of study should be called Critical Discourse Studies (ibid.) Van Dijk’s reasoning for this is that the name Critical Discourse Analysis is misleading and is assumed to be a “method of discourse analysis” (ibid., emphases in original). As the name Critical Discourse Studies has not been as of yet standardized, I will continue to use CDA.
The field of critical discourse analysis has faced many criticisms regarding the position of the researcher, implying bias and the lack of scientific rigor. Weninger explains that CDA has been accused of circularity, the “relationship between linguistic form and social function” (2008, 147). While there is no claim that specific linguistic forms have specific and exact ideological functions, researchers are “able to ‘read off’ the manipulative intent of texts” (ibid.) There is also criticism that due to the explicated stance of the researcher, they are likely to find what they have assumed to find in the text and that this analysis is biased (Weninger 2008, 147; van Dijk 2008, 7). Van Dijk, however, counters these criticisms by explaining that critical discourse analysts are aware of the complexity of the issues they are studying and that to study these complex issues complex theories and methodologies are required (2008, 7).
Baker et al. also discuss the criticisms toward both corpus linguistics and CDA, and the main criticisms that relate to the current thesis are the following: critical discourse analysts are "accused of selecting texts which they either incorrectly believe to be representative or have been chosen in order to ‘prove a point’” (2008, 283) and critical discourse analysts are also criticized for studying a small number of texts (ibid.) Corpus linguistics is also often criticized for ignoring context (2008, 279) because of the large scale nature of corpus linguistic studies. Baker et al. also respond to this criticism of both frameworks, arguing that the criticism toward corpus linguistics is based on a narrow view of corpus linguistic methods (ibid.), and that by combining the two frameworks they are able to resolve the aforementioned issues (2008, 283). Thus, combining the two, the corpus data would be large enough to be representative and significant enough and with a critical stance of CDA the context would be paramount to understanding how power and language are used.
According to Foucault, nothing meaningful exists outside discourse (Hall 2007, 44–45). The prevailing discourse is the result of a power struggle or a struggle between discourses. Rivaling discourses means that there are different ways of thinking and speaking of matters and in different discourses different things are taken as granted or the starting point for discussion are different. In Fairclough’s terms, control over discourse means the power to normalize (1989, 33). According to van Dijk, the power in media discourse is not located in the single journalist, but in the social position the
journalist is in and in the relationship between the journalist and the organization or media (2008, 12).
Despite van Dijk’s call for discourse studies to focus less on micro structures (2008, 15), as is the case in this study, there is merit in studying power at micro level. Van Dijk explains that “[t]hrough a detailed analysis of such organizational discursive practices – aimed at controlling the production of public discourse – we are able to show how social macro structures are related to the structures of public discourse, and finally how these may influence the minds of the public at large.” (ibid.) However, Hill (2008), Bonilla-Silva (2010) and Hodges (2015) all conclude that no one claims to be racist and defend themselves vehemently against the nomination, thus no one is racist by their own definition. The oxymoronic situation where racists do not exist but yet racism still persists is then created. Thus, there must be either a discourse of racism prevalent, which does not adhere to critical notions of racism (i.e. the folk theory of racism discussed by Hill 2008). So in this regard it can be fruitful to examine the micro level of language, i.e. grammatic structures, in order to build up towards a macro level study of racism in language.
Power can also be seen of consisting of privileged access to various socially valued resources (van Dijk 1993, 254). Van Dijk himself also notes that access is a vague notion (1993, 255), and according to van Dijk
it may mean that language users or communicators have more or less freedom in the use of special discourse genres or styles, or in the participation in specific communicative events and contexts. […] People may have more or less active or passive access to communicative events, as is usually the case for journalists, professors or bosses when writing for, or speaking to, a more or less passive audience.
(Van Dijk 1993, 256)
In the context of this thesis, then, access can be seen as working in two ways, the symbolically powerful have access to shape both elite and mass discourse, while the underprivileged have limited access to shape discourse but have wider access to discourse such as the news. Thus the power that journalists and other symbolically powerful groups have is accentuated because of this imbalance.