- Coventry, Coventry, United Kingdom
Veit Schwab
University of Warwick, Centre for Applied Linguistics, Department Member
- University of Warwick, Politics and International Studies, PAIS, Department Memberadd
DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2018.1456946 This contribution emphasises the importance of conditions of production and relations of production in Discourse Studies. It argues that rather than constituting an extra-discursive realm that... more
DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2018.1456946
This contribution emphasises the importance of conditions of production and relations of production in Discourse Studies. It argues that rather than constituting an extra-discursive realm that simply belongs to the economic sphere of a social formation, conditions and relations of production present a veritable concern for Discourse Studies. They constitute two central concepts of Marxism, and grasp two intertwined processes that assure the survival of a specific mode of production (e.g. late capitalism). It is not only the conditions of production that need to be reproduced under certain relations of production. It is also these relations themselves that need to be reproduced discursively and ideologically. Hence, conditions and relations of production and their reproduction are fundamentally material-discursive. In the early days of discourse analysis in France, both concepts and a Marxist take on (knowledge) production constituted an important point of reference. Here, the conditions of production of discourse were more than the setting, context or the situation semiotic material is produced in. In today's Discourse Studies, however, conditions and relations of (re)production are often conceived of as the ‘material other’ of discourse, and are rarely scrutinised explicitly on the theoretical, analytical, and political level. We argue that such an understanding not only obfuscates the materialist heritage of Discourse Studies. It also contributes to a depoliticised understanding of research, in which the conditions in which discourse is (re)produced are strangely separated from the broader conditions and relations of production in late capitalism.
This contribution emphasises the importance of conditions of production and relations of production in Discourse Studies. It argues that rather than constituting an extra-discursive realm that simply belongs to the economic sphere of a social formation, conditions and relations of production present a veritable concern for Discourse Studies. They constitute two central concepts of Marxism, and grasp two intertwined processes that assure the survival of a specific mode of production (e.g. late capitalism). It is not only the conditions of production that need to be reproduced under certain relations of production. It is also these relations themselves that need to be reproduced discursively and ideologically. Hence, conditions and relations of production and their reproduction are fundamentally material-discursive. In the early days of discourse analysis in France, both concepts and a Marxist take on (knowledge) production constituted an important point of reference. Here, the conditions of production of discourse were more than the setting, context or the situation semiotic material is produced in. In today's Discourse Studies, however, conditions and relations of (re)production are often conceived of as the ‘material other’ of discourse, and are rarely scrutinised explicitly on the theoretical, analytical, and political level. We argue that such an understanding not only obfuscates the materialist heritage of Discourse Studies. It also contributes to a depoliticised understanding of research, in which the conditions in which discourse is (re)produced are strangely separated from the broader conditions and relations of production in late capitalism.
Research Interests:
The discursive and the material are entangled. This entanglement lies at the foundation of every materialist approach to discourse. A cognate concern for linguistic phenomena, symbolic practices, discourse as well as materialism can look... more
The discursive and the material are entangled. This entanglement lies at the foundation of every materialist approach to discourse. A cognate concern for linguistic phenomena, symbolic practices, discourse as well as materialism can look back on a long tradition in the Social Sciences and Humanities. It was, however, only recently that their relation was made a more explicit stake again through the consolidation of two new fields—Discourse Studies and New Materialism(s). While discursivity and materiality have been placed at the centers of these fields of research, they are often regarded as conceptually disentangled and separated aspects of the Social.
This book adopts a different perspective. It contributes to the ongoing debates revolving around materiality, materialism, discourse, and language, by making the relation between them an explicit focus. Located at the inter¬sections of materialism and Discourse Studies, it highlights the materiality of discourse and the entwinement of matter and meaning.
The Social is a messy place. Grasping it in its material reality and inves¬tigating the processes and practices which constitute and reproduce it is approached in a multitude of ways. Over the past few decades, an assem¬blage of perspectives working on the intersections of language and society has emerged. What they share is a theoretical and empirical concern for the production of meaning and the constitutive role of discourse(s) in the social world. The highly diverse and transdisciplinary field of Discourse Studies looks at how (material) realities are made meaningful, and explores (material) consequences of discursive practices and processes. To this end, it brings together various strands and permutations of discourse analyses and theories.
In the broadest sense, discourse analysis scrutinizes semiotic material that is appropriated and processed through practices embedded in specific
material contexts. Simultaneously, discourse analysis always proceeds against the background of a discourse-theoretical framework, which pro¬vides an ontological and epistemological foundation that needs to be made explicit. Taking its departure in the 1960s, research decidedly concerned with discourse(s) and the production of meaning has now become an integral part of the academic landscape.
Today, Discourse Studies brings together approaches from linguistics, sociology, political sciences, gender studies, cultural studies, and many oth¬ers. They reach from micro-analytical camps that analyze discourse as a set of situated practices and processes, to socio-historical and macro-sociological strands, which are more interested in the (re)production of large scale social phenomena. While this diversity is reflected in the contributions to this volume, they are united in two important ways: They share an interest in discourse and discursive practices and, more importantly, they all adopt a decidedly materialist perspective.
In many ways, discourse and language are fundamentally material. Furthermore, meaning making practices take place in material conditions (e.g., conditions and relations of production/reproduction), and are infused with power relations and inequality, which they also shape. The materiality of discourse and its embeddedness in material conditions are but two aspects of a materialist discourse analysis, which posits the primacy of the material over the ideational or “immaterial” when empirically or theoretically investigating meaning making practices in contexts.
The present volume investigates the methodological and conceptual impli¬cations materialism has for Discourse Studies. Simultaneously, the contribu¬tions show how discourse-analytical and theoretical concepts and methods contribute to a genuinely materialist understanding of the social world. Thus, what follows can be located on the intersection of Discourse Studies and materialism. With Discourse Studies constituting an ever-growing area of research and with questions of materiality and materialism experiencing a remarkable revival, Material Discourse—Materialist Analysis is an intervention in, as well as an expression of these ongoing discussions.
This book adopts a different perspective. It contributes to the ongoing debates revolving around materiality, materialism, discourse, and language, by making the relation between them an explicit focus. Located at the inter¬sections of materialism and Discourse Studies, it highlights the materiality of discourse and the entwinement of matter and meaning.
The Social is a messy place. Grasping it in its material reality and inves¬tigating the processes and practices which constitute and reproduce it is approached in a multitude of ways. Over the past few decades, an assem¬blage of perspectives working on the intersections of language and society has emerged. What they share is a theoretical and empirical concern for the production of meaning and the constitutive role of discourse(s) in the social world. The highly diverse and transdisciplinary field of Discourse Studies looks at how (material) realities are made meaningful, and explores (material) consequences of discursive practices and processes. To this end, it brings together various strands and permutations of discourse analyses and theories.
In the broadest sense, discourse analysis scrutinizes semiotic material that is appropriated and processed through practices embedded in specific
material contexts. Simultaneously, discourse analysis always proceeds against the background of a discourse-theoretical framework, which pro¬vides an ontological and epistemological foundation that needs to be made explicit. Taking its departure in the 1960s, research decidedly concerned with discourse(s) and the production of meaning has now become an integral part of the academic landscape.
Today, Discourse Studies brings together approaches from linguistics, sociology, political sciences, gender studies, cultural studies, and many oth¬ers. They reach from micro-analytical camps that analyze discourse as a set of situated practices and processes, to socio-historical and macro-sociological strands, which are more interested in the (re)production of large scale social phenomena. While this diversity is reflected in the contributions to this volume, they are united in two important ways: They share an interest in discourse and discursive practices and, more importantly, they all adopt a decidedly materialist perspective.
In many ways, discourse and language are fundamentally material. Furthermore, meaning making practices take place in material conditions (e.g., conditions and relations of production/reproduction), and are infused with power relations and inequality, which they also shape. The materiality of discourse and its embeddedness in material conditions are but two aspects of a materialist discourse analysis, which posits the primacy of the material over the ideational or “immaterial” when empirically or theoretically investigating meaning making practices in contexts.
The present volume investigates the methodological and conceptual impli¬cations materialism has for Discourse Studies. Simultaneously, the contribu¬tions show how discourse-analytical and theoretical concepts and methods contribute to a genuinely materialist understanding of the social world. Thus, what follows can be located on the intersection of Discourse Studies and materialism. With Discourse Studies constituting an ever-growing area of research and with questions of materiality and materialism experiencing a remarkable revival, Material Discourse—Materialist Analysis is an intervention in, as well as an expression of these ongoing discussions.
Research Interests:
Discourse Studies started out as materialist and political endeavor. Many aspects of this heritage, however, seem to have gotten lost in contemporary approaches to discourse, or live on as a spectral undercurrent that remains implicit.... more
Discourse Studies started out as materialist and political endeavor. Many aspects of this heritage, however, seem to have gotten lost in contemporary approaches to discourse, or live on as a spectral undercurrent that remains implicit. Although Critical Discourse Analysis, the Essex School, enunciative pragmatics as well as other strands avail themselves to materialist theories and could be dubbed materialist, we believe that the relationship between discourse analysis and materialism has not been explored enough with regard to the methodological and conceptual consequences a materialist conception of discourse entails.
In this chapter, we propose to explore the entanglement of materialism and discourse analysis before and in Discourse Studies across three moments of materialist discourse analysis. This will allow drafting some criteria for a materialist study of discourse.
Our argument resonates within a broader research agenda that aims at promoting a genuinely materialist take on discourse by focusing on the relation between discourse, ideology, and political economy. We briefly introduce this perspective in the first section of this chapter.
In the second section, we claim that viable theoretical and methodological elements of a genuinely materialist approach to discourse can be found before and in what is called ‘French’ Discourse Analysis (FDA). More specifically, we argue that a materialist understanding of language and discourse is present in Marxian materialism as well as other early theorists of language and discourse, such as Bakhtin and Vološinov, who help understand discourses in their material and effective reality, as well as in relation to social conditions of power and exploitation – a first moment of materialist discourse analysis. Furthermore, we suggest that parts of Louis Althusser’s work do not merely constitute a theoretical source on which discourse analysts drew and draw, but a discourse analysis avant la lettre – and thus represents a second moment of materialist discourse analysis. We then propose to locate a third moment in the materialist political project of a group of researchers around Michel Pêcheux.
Against this background, the chapter closes with a brief discussion of four criteria that for us characterize a materialist approach to discourse. We will also point to some tensions between them, which can and need to be made productive within a materialist methodological framework.
In this chapter, we propose to explore the entanglement of materialism and discourse analysis before and in Discourse Studies across three moments of materialist discourse analysis. This will allow drafting some criteria for a materialist study of discourse.
Our argument resonates within a broader research agenda that aims at promoting a genuinely materialist take on discourse by focusing on the relation between discourse, ideology, and political economy. We briefly introduce this perspective in the first section of this chapter.
In the second section, we claim that viable theoretical and methodological elements of a genuinely materialist approach to discourse can be found before and in what is called ‘French’ Discourse Analysis (FDA). More specifically, we argue that a materialist understanding of language and discourse is present in Marxian materialism as well as other early theorists of language and discourse, such as Bakhtin and Vološinov, who help understand discourses in their material and effective reality, as well as in relation to social conditions of power and exploitation – a first moment of materialist discourse analysis. Furthermore, we suggest that parts of Louis Althusser’s work do not merely constitute a theoretical source on which discourse analysts drew and draw, but a discourse analysis avant la lettre – and thus represents a second moment of materialist discourse analysis. We then propose to locate a third moment in the materialist political project of a group of researchers around Michel Pêcheux.
Against this background, the chapter closes with a brief discussion of four criteria that for us characterize a materialist approach to discourse. We will also point to some tensions between them, which can and need to be made productive within a materialist methodological framework.
Research Interests:
Das Migrations- und Grenzregime der EU war dreifach in die wohl größte Krise seit seiner Entstehung geraten: Erstens hatten sich die gemeinsamen Außengrenzen als de facto nicht kontrollierbar erwiesen, zweitens brach das für... more
Das Migrations- und Grenzregime der EU war dreifach in die wohl größte Krise seit seiner Entstehung geraten: Erstens hatten sich die gemeinsamen Außengrenzen als de facto nicht kontrollierbar erwiesen, zweitens brach das für (nord-)westeuropäische Staaten als Kompensation zur Abschaffung der Binnengrenzen eingesetzte Gemeinsame Europäische Asylsystem in sich zusammen und drittens wurde die Personenfreizügigkeit von Unionsbürger*innen sowie die Idee der ›sozialen Union‹ massiv in Frage gestellt.
Während diese drei Krisenerscheinungen sowohl im öffentlichen Diskurs als auch in weiten Teilen der Migrationsforschung meist als getrennte Themen behandelt werden, rief unser Call for Papers dazu auf, sie analytisch zusammenzubringen. Dieser Verschränkung unterschiedlicher Krisentendenzen des Migrations- und Grenzregimes lag die Erkenntnis zugrunde, dass sich die »komplexen, heterogenen und machtförmigen Realitäten der Migration« (Redaktion movements 2015) nach und durch EUropa nicht adäquat erfassen lassen, wenn nicht auch die verschiedenen Facetten des EUropäischen Migrations- und Grenzregimes zueinander sowie zu übergreifenden gesellschaftlichen Transformationen ins Verhältnis gesetzt werden. Die durch dieses Regime vorgenommenen Unterscheidungen zwischen schutzbedürftigen Geflüchteten und illegalisierten Migrant*innen, zwischen legitimen Asylgründen und ›Asylmissbrauch‹ sowie zwischen erwünschter Mobilität von Arbeitskräften und sogenannter ›Armutszuwanderung‹ bzw. ›Sozialtourismus‹ sind allesamt Effekte des umkämpften Politik- und Wissensfeldes der Migration und daher nicht unabhängig voneinander zu verstehen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund drängten sich uns für das vorliegende Heft eine Reihe von Fragen auf: Wie lassen sich die grenzüberschreitenden Bewegungen nach EUropa mit der umkämpften Regulierung von Migrationsbewegungen innerhalb EUropas zusammendenken? Mit welchen Modi des Regierens wird auf die turbulenten Bewegungen nach und durch EUropa reagiert und wie artikulieren sich diese in konkreten Praktiken, Konflikten und Kämpfen? Wie verschränken sich hier sowohl ökonomische, rassistische als auch humanitäre Logiken und wie verändern diese das EUropäische Migrations- und Grenzregime?
Während diese drei Krisenerscheinungen sowohl im öffentlichen Diskurs als auch in weiten Teilen der Migrationsforschung meist als getrennte Themen behandelt werden, rief unser Call for Papers dazu auf, sie analytisch zusammenzubringen. Dieser Verschränkung unterschiedlicher Krisentendenzen des Migrations- und Grenzregimes lag die Erkenntnis zugrunde, dass sich die »komplexen, heterogenen und machtförmigen Realitäten der Migration« (Redaktion movements 2015) nach und durch EUropa nicht adäquat erfassen lassen, wenn nicht auch die verschiedenen Facetten des EUropäischen Migrations- und Grenzregimes zueinander sowie zu übergreifenden gesellschaftlichen Transformationen ins Verhältnis gesetzt werden. Die durch dieses Regime vorgenommenen Unterscheidungen zwischen schutzbedürftigen Geflüchteten und illegalisierten Migrant*innen, zwischen legitimen Asylgründen und ›Asylmissbrauch‹ sowie zwischen erwünschter Mobilität von Arbeitskräften und sogenannter ›Armutszuwanderung‹ bzw. ›Sozialtourismus‹ sind allesamt Effekte des umkämpften Politik- und Wissensfeldes der Migration und daher nicht unabhängig voneinander zu verstehen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund drängten sich uns für das vorliegende Heft eine Reihe von Fragen auf: Wie lassen sich die grenzüberschreitenden Bewegungen nach EUropa mit der umkämpften Regulierung von Migrationsbewegungen innerhalb EUropas zusammendenken? Mit welchen Modi des Regierens wird auf die turbulenten Bewegungen nach und durch EUropa reagiert und wie artikulieren sich diese in konkreten Praktiken, Konflikten und Kämpfen? Wie verschränken sich hier sowohl ökonomische, rassistische als auch humanitäre Logiken und wie verändern diese das EUropäische Migrations- und Grenzregime?
Research Interests:
Contrary to public discourses and large parts of migration studies, which predominantly treated these phenomena as separate topics, our call for papers suggested to bring them together analytically. The will to entangle the different... more
Contrary to public discourses and large parts of migration studies, which predominantly treated these phenomena as separate topics, our call for papers suggested to bring them together analytically. The will to entangle the different tendencies of crisis was based on the assumption that the »complex, heterogeneous and powerful realities of migration« (Editorial Board of movements 2015) to and through EUrope cannot be grasped adequately, if the various facets of the EUropean migration and border regime are neither related to each other, nor analysed as part of overarching social transformations. The distinctions made by these regimes – e.g. between refugees in need of protection and illegalised immigrants, between legitimate asylum grounds and ›asylum abuse‹, as well as between the desired mobility of workers and so-called ›poverty migration‹ or ›benefits tourism‹ – are all effects of contested policies and knowledge in the field of migration, and therefore only comprehensible in relation to each other.
Against this background, several questions are raised in the present issue: How can the cross-border movements to EUrope be linked to the highly contested regulation of migratory movements within the EU? Which modes of governing are used in reaction to the turbulent movements to and through EUrope, and how do they articulate themselves in concrete practices, conflicts, and struggles? How do economic, racist, and humanitarian logics interlace here, and how do they change the EUropean migration and border regime?
Against this background, several questions are raised in the present issue: How can the cross-border movements to EUrope be linked to the highly contested regulation of migratory movements within the EU? Which modes of governing are used in reaction to the turbulent movements to and through EUrope, and how do they articulate themselves in concrete practices, conflicts, and struggles? How do economic, racist, and humanitarian logics interlace here, and how do they change the EUropean migration and border regime?
Research Interests:
This intervention aims at stimulating a collective discussion on everyday racism in and beyond (Critical) Migration Studies. From a reflexive perspective, we scrutinise the intricate ways racism – and the norm of whiteness as one of its... more
This intervention aims at stimulating a collective discussion on everyday racism in and beyond (Critical) Migration Studies. From a reflexive perspective, we scrutinise the intricate ways racism – and the norm of whiteness as one of its most immediate manifestations – affect our everyday lives whilst navigating the myriad spaces of Migration Studies and anti-racist activism. Against the background of a theoretical framework that allows thinking through everyday racism in activist/academic spaces, we explore the lifecycle of academic migration in the white neoliberal academy, as well as problematic divisions of labour between different spaces and subjects of knowledge production, activism, and care. Based on this, we discuss some ways to move beyond the white status quo. The world over has been and is experiencing Students (of Colour) rebelling against white academia, or as we like to call it, academia. They are unhappy with the canon they are being forced to read, with the demographic make-up of their staff and fellow students, and with their surroundings (statues, buildings, etc.) named after and mythologizing racist and colonial projects. The Black Justice League protests calling for a name change of the university's (in)famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs due to the former president's racist legacy is just one example of this. We are two activist researchers working on borders and migration who first met at a conference on critical migration studies hosted by MobLab, a loose network of movements | Jg. 2, Heft 1/2016 | www.movements-journal.org
Research Interests:
Politische Pädagogik muss den unterschiedlichen Wissenspositionen der Akteur/innen Rechnung tragen
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In my contribution, I problematize practices of conceptual bordering in Migration Studies and discuss ethical and political implications thereof. Concepts in the field of migration are subject to debates on definition and attribution... more
In my contribution, I problematize practices of conceptual bordering in Migration Studies and discuss ethical and political implications thereof.
Concepts in the field of migration are subject to debates on definition and attribution between policymakers, researchers, and activists. Mostly treated as more or less accurate reflections of ‘reality’, their constitution and the underlying logic of differentiation remain unquestioned.
Using the example of the “refugee”/“labour migrant” dichotomy I show how research, by resorting to static distinctions, risks being complicit with practices of bordering. Conceptual bordering is supplementing modes of differential inclusion that open positions of legitimate presence and participation for some migrants, while others remain excluded.
Against the background of Discourse Theory, Structural Marxism, and the Autonomy of Migration approach, I argue that it is crucial to address the double excess of migration to locate and unsettle these practices: Migration as a social and political reality is (co-) constituted by a surplus of meaning and marked by a surplus of reality, since it always already exceeds conceptual and material borders.
I propose to systematically contrast the privileged academic position of enunciation with migrants’ power to define and contest to rethink ethical modes of research in and beyond the field of migration.
Concepts in the field of migration are subject to debates on definition and attribution between policymakers, researchers, and activists. Mostly treated as more or less accurate reflections of ‘reality’, their constitution and the underlying logic of differentiation remain unquestioned.
Using the example of the “refugee”/“labour migrant” dichotomy I show how research, by resorting to static distinctions, risks being complicit with practices of bordering. Conceptual bordering is supplementing modes of differential inclusion that open positions of legitimate presence and participation for some migrants, while others remain excluded.
Against the background of Discourse Theory, Structural Marxism, and the Autonomy of Migration approach, I argue that it is crucial to address the double excess of migration to locate and unsettle these practices: Migration as a social and political reality is (co-) constituted by a surplus of meaning and marked by a surplus of reality, since it always already exceeds conceptual and material borders.
I propose to systematically contrast the privileged academic position of enunciation with migrants’ power to define and contest to rethink ethical modes of research in and beyond the field of migration.
Research Interests:
The DiscourseNet: Collaborative Working Paper Series reflects ongoing research activity at the intersection of language and society in the interdis- ciplinary field of Discourse Studies. Prolonging the activities and publications of... more
The DiscourseNet: Collaborative Working Paper Series reflects ongoing research activity at the intersection of language and society in the interdis- ciplinary field of Discourse Studies. Prolonging the activities and publications of DiscourseNet, it welcomes contributions which actively engage in a dialogue across different theories of discourse, disciplines, topics, methods and methodologies. The DN CWPS is not “just another working paper series”. The DN CWPS is much more collabora- tive in spirit, as it gives you a constructive response by two experts as well as offering you the opportu- nities for social networking with researchers in your field of expertise. The goal of DN CWPS is supporting, extending and deepening debate, hence each accepted paper will obtain two reviews from experts in the paper's field. Both comments will be published in the appendix of the paper. Additionally, every author will be invited to the upcoming DiscourseNet meeting to present the paper and to get in touch with the commentators and other discourse researchers.
Research Interests: Discourse Analysis, Sociology, Cultural Studies, International Relations, Communication, and 16 moreEducation, Languages and Linguistics, Social Sciences, Higher Education, Postcolonial Studies, Political Science, Culture, Applied Linguistics, Post-Colonialism, Postmodernism, Critical Discourse Analysis, Hegemony, Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony, Frame Analysis, Soziologie, and Diskursanalyse
In this workshop, we seek to explore how a decidedly materialist approach to discourse can be put into practice. Bringing together contributions from a range of disciplines, we will think through the methodological implications... more
In this workshop, we seek to explore how a decidedly materialist approach to discourse can be put into practice. Bringing together contributions from a range of disciplines, we will think through the methodological implications materialism has for Discourse Studies, and vice versa.
Research Interests: Critical Theory, Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies, Marxism, Louis Althusser, and 14 moreFrench linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Marxist theory, Dialectical Materialism, Materiality (Anthropology), Historical Materialism, Political Discourse Analysis, Ideology and Discourse Analysis, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Discourse Analysis (Research Methodology), New Materialism, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Michel Pêcheux, and Discourse Analysis (DA)
In vielerlei Hinsicht nahm die Diskursforschung ihren Anfang als politisches und materialistisches Projekt. Besonders in der französischen Tradition – beeinflusst von dezidiert marxistischen Autoren wie Michel Pêcheux oder Louis Althusser... more
In vielerlei Hinsicht nahm die Diskursforschung ihren Anfang als politisches und materialistisches Projekt. Besonders in der französischen Tradition – beeinflusst von dezidiert marxistischen Autoren wie Michel Pêcheux oder Louis Althusser – waren Diskurstheorie und -analyse von Beginn an emanzipatorische und materialistische Zugänge zum Sozialen. Dieses materialistische Erbe scheint in Teilen der zeitgenössischen Diskursforschung verloren gegangen zu sein. Wir glauben, dass die Grenze die zwischen Materialismus und Diskursforschung gezogen wird, sowie die Art dieser Grenzziehung selbst
diskursive Effekte sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es für uns mehr als eine reine Nostalgie, das Vergessen der Verstrickung von Diskursanalyse und Materialismus zu hinterfragen. Die Hervorhebung der engen Verbindungen dieser beiden Strömungen ermöglicht nicht nur einige Beschränkungen zeitgenössischer Wissensproduktion an der Schnittstelle des Sozialen, Linguistischen und Politischen sichtbarzumachen, sondern hilft möglicherweise außerdem dabei diese Beschränkungen zu transzendieren und die institutionellen Rahmen und Produktionsbedingungen der Diskursanalyse zu hinterfragen. Aus unserer Sicht lassen sich methodologische und theoretische Elemente einer genuin materialistischen Diskursforschung vor und in der Französischen Diskursanalyse (FDA) finden. Im Besonderen vertreten wir die Auffassung, dass Spuren einer solchen materialistischen Sicht auf diskursive Phänomene neben dem Marxschen Materialismus auch in frühen sprach- und
diskurstheoretischen Ansätzen – beispielsweise in jenen von Vološinov und Bachtin – zu finden sind. Was diese Ansätze vereint, ist ein Verständnis von Diskurs, das letzteren in seiner materiellen und effektiven Wirklichkeit versteht und das Verhältnis des Diskursiven zu sozialen Macht- und Ausbeutungsverhältnissen hervorhebt. Des Weiteren argumentieren wir
dafür, Louis Althusser nicht lediglich als Stichwortgeber für die frühe Diskursanalyse, sondern als Diskursanalytiker avant la lettre zu verstehen. Aus dieser Perspektive sollte die FDA, speziell in ihrer von Pêcheux entwickelten Form, als materialistisches politisches Projekt in der marxistischen Tradition verstanden werden. Unser Beitrag beschränkt sich in
diesem Rahmen auf vier Elemente eines materialistischen Diskursansatzes: Durch das Aufzeigen der Rolle von Materialität, Ideologie, Geschichte und Objekt lassen sich produktive Verbindungen und Spannungen innerhalb einer materialistischen Methodologie der Diskursanalyse herausarbeiten. Hierbei scheint uns das Marxsche Konzept der Produktionsverhältnisse als Schlüssel zu einer materialistischen Methodologie geeignet zu sein, die in der Lage ist, Ideologie als diskursive Praktik zu fassen.
diskursive Effekte sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es für uns mehr als eine reine Nostalgie, das Vergessen der Verstrickung von Diskursanalyse und Materialismus zu hinterfragen. Die Hervorhebung der engen Verbindungen dieser beiden Strömungen ermöglicht nicht nur einige Beschränkungen zeitgenössischer Wissensproduktion an der Schnittstelle des Sozialen, Linguistischen und Politischen sichtbarzumachen, sondern hilft möglicherweise außerdem dabei diese Beschränkungen zu transzendieren und die institutionellen Rahmen und Produktionsbedingungen der Diskursanalyse zu hinterfragen. Aus unserer Sicht lassen sich methodologische und theoretische Elemente einer genuin materialistischen Diskursforschung vor und in der Französischen Diskursanalyse (FDA) finden. Im Besonderen vertreten wir die Auffassung, dass Spuren einer solchen materialistischen Sicht auf diskursive Phänomene neben dem Marxschen Materialismus auch in frühen sprach- und
diskurstheoretischen Ansätzen – beispielsweise in jenen von Vološinov und Bachtin – zu finden sind. Was diese Ansätze vereint, ist ein Verständnis von Diskurs, das letzteren in seiner materiellen und effektiven Wirklichkeit versteht und das Verhältnis des Diskursiven zu sozialen Macht- und Ausbeutungsverhältnissen hervorhebt. Des Weiteren argumentieren wir
dafür, Louis Althusser nicht lediglich als Stichwortgeber für die frühe Diskursanalyse, sondern als Diskursanalytiker avant la lettre zu verstehen. Aus dieser Perspektive sollte die FDA, speziell in ihrer von Pêcheux entwickelten Form, als materialistisches politisches Projekt in der marxistischen Tradition verstanden werden. Unser Beitrag beschränkt sich in
diesem Rahmen auf vier Elemente eines materialistischen Diskursansatzes: Durch das Aufzeigen der Rolle von Materialität, Ideologie, Geschichte und Objekt lassen sich produktive Verbindungen und Spannungen innerhalb einer materialistischen Methodologie der Diskursanalyse herausarbeiten. Hierbei scheint uns das Marxsche Konzept der Produktionsverhältnisse als Schlüssel zu einer materialistischen Methodologie geeignet zu sein, die in der Lage ist, Ideologie als diskursive Praktik zu fassen.
Research Interests:
Gesamtscheiße. Overall shit. This is the term that popped up when I was working on a collective piece on materialist discourse analysis with a friend. We were looking for ways to refer to the totality of messed-upness around us, the... more
Gesamtscheiße. Overall shit. This is the term that popped up when I was working on a collective piece on materialist discourse analysis with a friend. We were looking for ways to refer to the totality of messed-upness around us, the oppressive structures within (and sometimes against) which we move every day, and the feelings of anger and frustration that we’ve allowed to become all too familiar. A popular term in German left jargon to affectively (and, I would argue, not less descriptively) grasp an impalpable totality of, well, – shit! What does this PhD do with me? If, to rephrase a famous feminist slogan, the academic is political, what does that mean exactly? Working on conceptual borders, on the EUropean border regime always already means working within and against bordering practices and structures, and the oppression they emanate. This leaves traces, and it wouldn’t be an appropriate representation of my PhD journey to silence them. In my paper, I explore three affective dimensions that I have lived during my PhD: Desperation, responsibility, and hope. I am using non-fictional and fictional narrative writing to break with the treacherous comforts of abstract and impersonal analysis. This excursion through the landscapes of my affective conditions of knowledge production is personal; but its movements connect to, and interlace with broader processes of affectionate positioning and processes of in-/exclusion, troubling the idea of affects as something that is ‘internal’ to a subject.
Research Interests:
Material Discourse—Materialist Analysis explores the entanglement of material realities and discourse. A cognate concern for discourse as well as materialism and materiality can look back on a long tradition in the social sciences and... more
Material Discourse—Materialist Analysis explores the entanglement of material realities and discourse. A cognate concern for discourse as well as materialism and materiality can look back on a long tradition in the social sciences and humanities. This book makes their relation an explicit focus. Located at the intersections of materialism and Discourse Studies, it highlights the materiality of discourse and the entanglement of matter and meaning. The essays collected in this volume are united by a rejection of static dichotomies such as discursive / material, language / materiality, or material / immaterial. Rather than presenting materialism and Discourse Studies as distinct from one another, the contributors show them to be intimately entwined. Edited by Johannes Beetz and Veit Schwab, this book brings together theoretical and empirical contributions from a whole range of disciplines, fields, and academic contexts in a truly transdisciplinary and global manner. Material Discourse—Materialist Analysis intervenes in the ongoing debates revolving around materiality, materialism, discourse, and language, as well as the intricate relations between them.