Archive for February, 2009

« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »
21 February 2009

Critique: An interdisciplinary day conference

An interdisciplinary day conference critiquing the notion of Critique is being held on 26th June 2009 at the Dept of Social Sciences, Loughborough University. Key speakers are Michael Billig, Paul Chilton, Lilie Chouliaraki and Andrew Sayer.

Critique and being critical are key notions across the social sciences and humanities, but they are rarely subject to discussion and examination. What do we mean by ‘critique’? What does it mean to be ‘critical’? Despite being central to the whole approach to language and semiosis advanced by CDA scholars, until recently, this key concept has received surprisingly little (critical) attention and explication. This comparative silence has prompted a variety of scholars – both sympathetic and antagonistic to CDA as an analytic approach – to fill this gap with a variety of interpretive possibilities.

These and other issues will be addressed at the Critique day conference – the latest in a biannual series of events organised by an informal international grouping of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) scholars.

CDA is a heterogeneous and multidisciplinary approach to the examination of the role of language and semiosis in social life, and the speakers have been chosen with this heterogeneity in mind. The day conference will host four speakers from cognate academic disciplines: sociology, social psychology, linguistics and media studies. Each speaker will summarise their approach to critical analysis and provide an account of the enduring importance of ‘being critical’ in social research. The advantage of limiting the day to four keynote speakers in this way means that we maximise time for questions, discussion (and critique!), and identify useful parallels and potential areas of cross-fertilisation from the complementary disciplinary approaches.

Our confirmed speakers:

  • Professor Michael Billig, Professor of Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University: ‘The language of critique’
  • Professor Paul Chilton, Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University: ‘Critical perspectives’
  • Professor Lilie Chouliaraki, Professor of Media and Communications, Department of Media, London School of Economics: ‘Critique as Phronesis: Ethics and the Critical Analysis of Discourse’
  • Professor Andrew Sayer, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University: ‘What is critical about critical social science?’

Registration costs:critique-online_003
£20.00 Academic and academic related staff
£10.00 Students and researchers

Places are limited, so early registration is recommended.

Please email john_e_richardson@hotmail.com for a registration form.

…pic from inkygirl

Posted in discourse theory | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , ,
21 February 2009

Politkovskaya’s killers

Anna Politkovskaya’s sister rejects the idea that the Kremlin was responsible for ordering the killing of the critical Russian journalist on 7 October 2006. Channel 4′s report on the verdict of the trial of four men suspected of the killing can be seen for one week by going to Channel 4 News and scrolling down to “Thurs 19 Feb Part 4: Anna – CIA”. All four were found not guilty on 19 Feb.

Channel 4 provides extensive details of the case, the four men, the issues of impunity facing Russia’s legal system, the contradictory evidence, etc.

More importantly, it includes (minute 4:06) an interview with Anna Politkovskaya’s sister, Elena Kudimova, who thought that there was enough evidence to convict the four in court yesterday. She said, however, that she is not interested in who finally pulled the trigger, but in who ordered the killing.

She also pointed out that what Anna wrote about still continues today, i.e., that law enforcement officers are connected to organised crime. To which Jon Snow replied:

Jon Snow: Do you think the finger of suspicion actually extends right inside the Kremlin?

Elena Kudimova: No, I don’t think so. Anna wrote about many other people, especially in the Caucasus, who also quite disliked her writing. I don’t mean necessarily Chechnya, it is also Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria and Ingushetia.

I was waiting to see how Jon Snow would follow up on this, and perhaps expand on her suspicions. But his next question draws attention back to Russia’s political/legal systems:

I mean, are you surprised that it even got to a trial at this point? And is there a chance that another trial, of more important people, might be held?

Multiple discourses in any one text, indeed.

Posted in journalism, media, politics, russia | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , ,
20 February 2009

Russia’s Free Press Hoax

Interesting piece by William Dunkerley on opednews.com. In Russia’s Free Press Hoax, he responds to a recent New York Times editorial, one of numerous such articles which claim that Vladimir Putin stifled Russia’s free press. Dunkerley argues that there was no free press to stifle in the first place.

His evidence:

1. The Yeltsin administration nipped press freedom in the bud. It imposed laws that gave media companies little hope of operating profitably. And without profitability, the press had no way of achieving independence. Instead, the media companies became dependent, not free, and most remain so today.

2. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ], 15 journalists were murdered during the period of Putin’s presidency. What the “murdered journalist” stories fail to report is that in the previous 8-year period, there were 31 murders! In other words, under Putin, the number of journalists killed was more than cut in half.

While I’d phrase the criticism differently (less emphasis on “mis”information and more on “a particular perspective on” information), I agree that there is a definite shift in the attention paid to killed journalists under Yeltsin (not only CPJ, but also Reporter sans Frontiers (RFS) give a similar number of killed journalists, which they report as having decreased under Putin).

What I find crucial to this discussion is the desired aim. Ignoring hard news for the moment, what do editors hope to achieve when they blame Putin for the deaths of journalists? Putting this more discoursively, what is the function of such editorials; what ‘action’ do they carry out? Editors – and the commentariat in general – generally make recommendations for change, whether explicit or implicit.

If the reason for the deaths is Putin, the recommendation must be to reduce his power. The trouble is that

  • (i) according to the CPJ and RSF websites, the majority of journalists who were killed were investigating stories associated with organised crime and/or business corruption,
  • (ii) this means that when grand sweeping statements are made about these journalists being critics of the Russian regime and/or Putin, the editorial in question completely loses credibility in the eyes of the Russian public and politicians. This in turn means that
  • (iii) no-one feels the need to tackle the problem.

The core problem, according to CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia programme researcher Nina Oganiova, is that murders of journalists are not followed up in the legal system. This is a serious issue in Russia, but it seems hypersimplistic to report this as Putin’s control over the media (although, again, this is not “mis”information, but a particular perspective on a piece of information).

*

Finally, I must jump to the defence of the journalists (as a proper anthropologist I might say “my” journalists) criticised by Dunkerley. There is a strict distinction to be drawn between

  1. very well informed, thoughtful, perceptive and/or insightful foreign correspondents based in Moscow,
  2. deadline-driven, desk-based, non-expert journalists who turn agency news into printable news stories often in less than 45 minutes, and are therefore thoroughly embedded in locally accepted knowledge of what Russia is doing at the moment and what meanings are to be assigned to these journalist deaths, and
  3. Washington Post editors (who seem to have some particularly deep axe to grind; see the discussions on Johnson’s Russia List).

*

And very finally. my personal favourite of the NYT editorial comes nearer the end:

So far Mr. Obama has been quiet about Russia’s latest efforts to bully its neighbors. He will have to find his voice. After its war with Georgia last year, Russia defied international law by recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Do we really need to go into who bullied who and who started what in Georgia again? Perhaps we could just refer to an old NYT article for details about what could as easily be called Georgia‘s war with Russia. Other articles discussed the hypocrisy of the debate on the legitimacy of recognising the independence of some former communist states but not others.


Posted in journalism, media, russia | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
19 February 2009

“Race” and anti-racism in academia

I’m pondering the term “race”. Something disturbs me when scholars of an anti-racist (or critical race theory) persuasion continue to use the term “race”. Does using the term — no matter how critically — and arguing, for instance, for improved “race relations”, not still reify the concept, and suggest that there really are different races?

So, first I assume that anti-racist scholars agree there is no scientific way to clearly define and demarcate separate “races”. The question then is how to describe and combat the undeniable phenomena of both explosive/hot and structural/systemic “racism”. In what terms?

One suggestion is “racialised” – to foreground the argument that this concept is a construct. And to foreground that precisely because it is a construct, it has strong power to marginalise, exclude and discriminate.

football_racism

…pic from nicholson.

Posted in discourse theory, politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
18 February 2009

Grievable and ungrievable

judith_butler2Which kind of life is valued and which is not? Which kinds of violence are sanctified and which are abhored? And how does war change how we are able to feel about other lives? How does war divide populations into ‘those who are openly grievable and those who are not’?

These are among the questions raised by Judith Butler in Berlin earlier this month and concisely expressed in her commencement address at Grinnell College (Iowa) in 2008.

She argues that

…war works to undermine a sensate democracy, restricting what we can feel, disposing us to feel shock and outrage in the face of one expression of violence and righteous coldness in the face of another.

While acknowledging that aggression is unavoidable, she suggests that it

… can and must be separated from violence. Violence is but one form that aggression assumes. There are ways of giving form to aggression that work in the service of democratic life including open antagonistic debate, discursive conflict, strikes, civil disobedience, speaking out, and even revolution.

And she calls on us to consider how we can shift the frame for interpreting events and deaths, for state and suicide bombings, for whose lives are rendered grievable, and – especially – how we can foreground the interdependency of the people and populations who cohabit on this globe.

this blog was primarily thought by the
discoursologist currently in
berlin; not the one in
braunschweig

Posted in discourse theory, media, politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , ,
17 February 2009

Media Analysis in Education

Nice overview in The Blog of Eckhoff on critical theories for analysing media which he’s tried out with his school students. He takes in semiotics, feminist and post-colonial approaches, rhetorical/audience studies and critical discourse analysis (CDA). I’m liking this quote:

I think it is important for us as educators to hit CDA theory well with our students so that they understand the importance of code switching and when it is appropriate to use one set of discourse rules over another depending upon the situation or text presented to them.

Posted in discourse theory, education, media | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
16 February 2009

Alternative media and protest

An article in the most recent Communication Quarterly is exactly the sort of linear media effects studies I mentioned yesterday. But this study analyses the positive, democratic, activist effects of alternative media rather than the traditional focus on the effects of violence on mainstream television. The results seem to be cause for optimism.

Abstract

Much research has explored the role media use plays in political participation. A limitation of this work is that alternative forms of media (e.g., protest Web sites) and participation (e.g., protests) have largely been ignored. Research shows that news media treat protest activity critically, suggesting mainstream media use might discourage alternative participation. This study employs a Random Digit Dialing survey (N = 476) of a large Midwestern community to examine the role mainstream and alternative media play in influencing both traditional political participation and protest forms of participation. The findings suggest that alternative media are positively related to alternative participation and underscore the emerging importance of Web-based media.

Michael P. Boyle and Mike Schmierbach (2009) ‘Media Use and Protest: The Role of Mainstream and Alternative Media Use in Predicting Traditional and Protest Participation’. Communication Quarterly 57 (1): 1 – 17.

Posted in media, media activism | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
15 February 2009

Is Facebook surrogate democracy?

Once more, Facebook and other social networking sites are the focus of academic discourse. The inaugural issue of Global Media Journal (open source) includes one paper which argues strongly that in our contemporary context, “information, communication and participation” are surrogates for “motivation, judgment and action”, i.e., for democratic political engagement.

This implies, in turn, that we may be settling for publicity in the place of the more the demanding democratic goods of politicization and equality. Somewhat more ominously, the popular embrace of these surrogates via emerging media technologies may actually undermine the prospect of a politics aimed at more radical outcomes. (Darin Barney [2008] Politics and Emerging Media: The Revenge of Publicity. Global Media Journal 1[1])

Although this position is far more subtle than the traditional media studies argument between academics who understand media effects as the linear adaption of media messages by passive/receptive audiences and other observers who articulate notions of active audiences/viewsers, an immediate question to these authors still arises. Are the participants in such Web 2.0 sites the same target group who would have otherwise engaged in “more radical” politics? Or are they today’s equivalent of those members of previous generations who may well have engaged actively with media (television, newspapers, etc.) in their private lives, but did not actively work towards active politicization or radical democracy. [One of my favourite examples of radical engagement with media in private spaces is Constance Penley's (1997) NASA/Trek: Popular Science and Sex in America. Verso]

On optimistic days, I’d point to the activisation of Facebook users who join, e.g., the CAAT (Campaign Against Arms Trade) group. On more pessimistic days, my first reaction to social networking sites is the huge problem arising from the amount of personal information we voluntarily make public. The KGB, the CIA, public relations companies and marketing managers would have paid exorbitant sums for this info in previous eras.

Posted in education, media, media activism | 1 Comment »

Tags: , , ,
10 February 2009

CfP: 2nd International Discourses and Cultural Practices Conference

Very interesting looking conference on “International Discourses and Cultural Practices” is planned for 7-9 July 2009. The deadline for abstracts is 27 February. Unfortunately Sydney is too far flung for me this year.

PLENARY SPEAKERS
Professor Deborah Cameron – University of Oxford
Professor Don Kulick – New York University
Professor Lesley Farrell – University of Technology, Sydney
Professor Phil Graham – Queensland University of Technology
Professor Rick Iedema – University of Technology, Sydney

CONFERENCE PAPERS SUBMISSION DATES
Friday 27 February 2009 Submission of abstracts for review
Friday 27 March 2009 Notification of acceptance of papers

*ABOUT THE CONFERENCE*
The aim of the conference is to explore discourses and cultural practices from a range of perspectives. We are interested in theoretical and applied research on discourses and cultural practices eg discourse and subjectivity, theories of discourse, practices as ‘the new discourse’; descriptive studies of discourse and cultural practices in specific contexts eg work, play, popular culture, organizations, media; and applications to professional and pedagogical contexts.

Papers, plenaries and colloquia will address themes and questions such as:

  • Discourses in professional practice: What roles do linguistic and cultural practices play in the organization and enactment of work?
  • Discourses and identity: How do we and others construct our sense of self through talk and text?
  • Academic discourses: Why do the discourses and cultural practices of the academy work as they do?
  • Discourse and intercultural communication: How do discourses differ in relation to different cultural practices?
  • Gendered discourses: How do discourse, gender and sexuality interrelate?
  • Classroom discourses: How do the language practices of the classroom relate to learning and teaching?
  • Discourses and international communication: What is the relationship between discourses, development and globalization?
  • Digital discourses: how are new technology producing new discourses?
  • Discourses and popular culture: What is the impact of popular culture on the formation of new discourses?

These are the main themes so far. If you would like to organize a paper of colloquium on other themes please let us know.

*VENUE*
The Conference will be held in the Eastern Avenue Auditorium and Lecture Theatre Complex, Eastern Avenue, University of Sydney.

*CONFERENCE CONVENORS *
Professor Diana Slade, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney
Professor Brian Paltridge, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Professor Chris Davison, School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,University of New South Wales
Professor Brian Paltridge, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney
Professor Alastair Pennycook, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney
Associate Professor Hermine Scheeres, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney
Professor Diana Slade, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney
Dr Marie Stevenson, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
c/o Renata Atkin, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney
Email: renata.atkin…/at/…uts.edu.au
Telephone: +61 2 9514 3973 Fax: +61 2 9514 3030
PO Box 123 Broadway, NSW 2007

Posted in discourse theory, education | 2 Comments »

Tags: , ,
9 February 2009

Blogging discourse (2)

Praxis: Happiness Club Blog informs users about coaches using linguistic discourse analysis, together with, e.g., positive psychology or brain research to create dynamic training programmes such as Anastasia Pryanikova’s “The Art and Science of Rewiring Your Brain for a Happier Life.”

Writing from Burma, Abacus tells the tale of someone being bullied by a stupid white man into accepting a favour and feel bad about it. The blog as a whole is harshly honest and very engaging; sure to resonate with many who’ve felt uncomfortable about their white-ness (or western-ness) while living in the majority world.

Fossicking About gets riled about politically correct changes to rhymes which patronise kids and mean they lose out on shared socio-cultural knowledge. (“What do you do with a drunken soldier?” has apparently been changed to “What do you do with a grumpy pirate?”)

Research: In the Asrudian Center Raewyn Connell writes on masculinities and power. In passing, Connell also writes: “A good piece of social research does not generate an answer that we can apply everywhere; but it may raise issues and pose questions that we can ask everywhere.” — Lovely.

Theory: The Bickerstaffe Record posts a long and typo-fulled, but interesting (and polemic) take on why Laclau and Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy was so successful in England of all places. Also links to a pdf of Hall’s seminal piece on Thatcherism.

Politics: Paul Trathern is pleased that Obama “is committed to the restructuring of our modes of discourse”; and is even optimistic enough to think that Obama is aiming for a political terrain in which we’ve gone beyond playing games (in Eric Berne’s Transactional Analytical sense).

Research and theory and politics and praxis: The philippines matrix project offers a critique of contemporary orthodox cultural studies, asking:

In what sense can this still inchoate and contested terrain called “cultural studies,” distinguished for the most part by formalist rhetorical analysis of texts and discourses, be an agent for emancipation, let alone revolutionary social transformation, of the plight of millions?

The critique functions simultaneously as a good introduction to cultural studies, taking in Gramsci, Althusser, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Angela McRobbie, Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Dick Hebdige, etc. (Short for an introduction, the text is long for a blog post.). Scrolling right down, we come to the critique:

[Cultural studies, CS] was never radical enough to destroy the logic of capital and the ideology of commodity exchange. Eventually CS has become an Establishment organon, or an academic “ideological state apparatus” preventing even the old style of Kulturkritik to function.

Posted in discourse theory, media, politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , , ,
« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.