Beyond Hegemony: Elaborating on the Use of Gramscian Concepts in Critical Discourse Analysis for Political Studies
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717722362 |
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Author | Matthew Donoghue |
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(2) 392 –408
Beyond Hegemony: Elaborating
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
on the Use of Gramscian
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717722362
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717722362
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Concepts in Critical Discourse
Analysis for Political Studies
Matthew Donoghue
Abstract
The work of Antonio Gramsci is important for the theoretical underpinnings of critical discourse
analysis. However, many scholars’ engagement with Gramsci’s work within critical discourse
analysis remains surprisingly thin. This article seeks to highlight the detriment to critical discourse
analysis of having only a surface engagement with Gramsci. It critically assesses how Gramscian
concepts such as hegemony and ‘common sense’ are currently employed within critical discourse
analysis and provides more detailed discussion on the import of these concepts for critical
discourse analysis. The article also argues that introducing the Gramscian concepts of the war
of position and spontaneous and normative grammars enables the further realisation of critical
discourse analysis’ ambition to be an emancipatory tool in political and social science. In so doing,
the article contributes to work on critical discourse analysis as a method in political studies,
particularly concerning the role of discourse in reproducing and maintaining asymmetrical power
relations between classes and social groups, and potential challenges to this.
Keywords
party politics, policy impact, methodology, Gramsci, subaltern citizens
Accepted: 24 May 2017
Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) engages with and critiques power relations in text and
talk (Van Dijk, 2004: 352). It is a powerful tool in problematising constructions of lan-
guage that (re)produce asymmetrical power relations between ruling and subaltern
classes. It is rooted in critical social theory, drawing from thinkers such as Foucault,
Bourdieu, Gramsci, Althusser and the Frankfurt School (Luke, 2002).
Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Corresponding author:
Matthew Donoghue, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House,
32 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2ER, UK.
Email: matthew.donoghue@spi.ox.ac.uk
Donoghue
393
CDA’s flexibility – it can be combined with various methods, used in various disci-
plines, and can take different forms – is not only partially due to this broad theoretical
heritage but also due to CDA’s explicitly socially situated nature, taking inspiration from
many people and directions of research (Van Dijk, 2001: 95). However, a drawback is
that its theoretical underpinnings and frameworks can become blurred; the invocation of
theorists with potentially conflicting nuances can cause tensions in how the object of
study is approached and analysed. ‘Given the striking heterogeneity of CDA’s intellec-
tual sources, it is at least surprising that there is little debate within CDA circles about
their relevance or, indeed, their compatibility’ (Breeze, 2011: 501), suggesting some
uncertainty regarding CDA’s ‘exact preferences for a particular social theory’
(Slembrouck, 2001: 40–41). Indeed, Van Dijk (2004: 363) – a central scholar of CDA –
admits that ‘the multidisciplinary theory of CDA that should relate discourse and action
with cognition and society are still on the agenda’. Relatedly, in many cases thinkers and
theories are referenced without much in the way of explanation or elaboration on the
position, use and significance of their conceptual contributions. CDA’s invocation of
Antonio Gramsci is exemplary of this.
Gramscian concepts – noticeably hegemony, but to a lesser extent common sense – are
referenced regularly when situating CDA theoretically. However, notwithstanding nota-
ble exceptions (Fairclough, 2004, 2013), those that draw on Gramsci for their inspiration
in many cases provide scant details. In this article, I argue that not providing a more in-
depth assessment of Gramscian thought in the context of discourse hinders the develop-
ment of a potentially very useful framework within which to situate CDA. In particular, I
argue that a greater engagement with Gramsci’s work on hegemony and common sense,
while also introducing more firmly the concepts of war of position and normative and
spontaneous grammars, bolsters the analysis of the relationship between social relations
and discourse and also strengthens CDA’s claim as a tool for social critique and emanci-
pation (Wodak and Meyer, 2009: 7). Gaining a deeper understanding of hegemony and
common sense, with a fuller appreciation of the mechanisms of coercion and consent, can
only be attained with a deeper engagement with Gramsci’s work. This article, therefore,
makes an original contribution by providing this fuller engagement explicitly within the
context of CDA, which is largely missing in the current literature. Furthermore, the intro-
duction of the war of position and of normative and spontaneous grammars deepens fur-
ther our understanding of the cogs within the machinery of hegemony and gives more
explanatory power to the notion of common sense as a central element of hegemony, as
well as an element over which groups struggle for control. The article, thus, provides
another contribution in sketching out the relationship between these concepts and how
their interaction impacts upon the development, influence and sites of vulnerability of
discourse as a tool of social and political domination.
Emphasising the contribution Gramsci can make to CDA increases the approach’s
relevance for political studies and analysis. It enables CDA to say more regarding state
and power maintenance through power relations between state, citizen and civil society.
It also provides a robust critical framework from which to analyse ideological assump-
tions inherent within political and policy decisions and their impact on citizens’ political
and social participation.
The article is divided into a number of sections. The first section explores shared
underpinnings between CDA and Gramscian theory. Next, the article reviews how
Gramsci is invoked in the existing CDA literature. The third section engages with the
Gramscian concepts of war of position and normative and spontaneous grammars,
394
Political Studies 66(2)
outlining their use in CDA and how they can strengthen the relationship between dis-
course and hegemony. Finally, the article concludes.
Shared Underpinnings
CDA draws upon many theorists, including Gramsci. Yet, the cursory approach to
Gramsci’s work is particularly evident with regard to scholars’ treatment of the concepts
of hegemony and common sense. It is important to remember that:
A linguistic and text analytic metalanguage, no matter how comprehensive, cannot ‘do’ CDA in
and of itself. It requires the overlay of social theoretic discourses for explaining and explicating
the social contexts, concomitants, contingencies and consequences of any given text or discourse
(Luke, 2002: 102).
Gramsci’s work, in particular, provides a solid foundation for such theorising. This
is because ‘for Gramsci language is both an element in the exercise of power and a
metaphor for how power operates’ (Ives, 2004: 101). Power in language can be seen in
the ways in which debate is opened up or shut down in various discourses (e.g.
Donoghue, 2013), voices included or excluded (e.g. Van Zoonen, 1994) or its role in the
production of physical violence (e.g. Linell and Jonsson, 1991). Language acts as a
metaphor for power because inherent to language use (and abuse) is a framework of
rules. These rules guide how we understand the social and political worlds and, thus, in
turn how we act and interact within those worlds. These rules, how they develop, how
they act upon different groups and how they can be challenged are the central broad
concerns of CDA (Van Dijk, 2003: 352).
At its core, a discourse analytical approach considers social reality to be constructed
through social interaction (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). This is represented in discourses,
which are ‘the interrelated texts, conversations and practices associated with a particu-
lar object’ (Burnham et al., 2008: 250). Some have suggested that the primacy of
social constructionism within discourse studies, in general, precludes a more extensive
use of Gramsci because of his primarily materialist position. De Goede (2003: 90;
cited in Bieler and Morton, 2008: 105), for example, argues that Gramscian political
analysis is economistic: discourse and culture, as part of the superstructure, are sec-
ondary in importance to the economic base ‘which ultimately determines the objective
economic interests of agents’. However, this criticism is misplaced for a number of
reasons. First, Gramsci is widely heralded as central to the cultural turn in Marxism
precisely because of the importance he placed on elements other than the economy and
capital while still retaining a deep and extensive critique of the material and ideational
aspects of capitalism (Crehan, 2002: 71–91; Jessop and Oosterlynck, 2008). Laclau
(2005: 116) goes further, arguing that Gramscianism represents ‘a crucial epistemo-
logical break’ within Marxism because it ‘breaks decisively with [traditional
Marxism’s] essentialist social logic’. Gramsci saw neither the...
To continue reading
Request your trial