Book Review: David Howarth et al. (eds.), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000, 243 pp., £14.99 pbk.)
| DOI | 10.1177/03058298000290030918 |
| Author | Ben O'Loughlin |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Millennium
958
David Howarth et al. (eds.), Discour se Theory and Political Analysis
(Manchester: Manchester Uni versity Press, 2000, 243 pp., £14. 99 pbk.).
After fifteen years of the Essex Sc hool of Discourse Theory, Howarth e t al. has
presented an end-of-term pro gress report that confidently attempts to remedy the
neglect of co ncrete pol itical issues by d iscursive stud ies. The book opens with a
well-structured discussio n of the e mergence, key assumption s concept s and logic o f
discourse theory. It cl oses by dra wing out the more rewardin g themes of the book
while posit ing new avenues of research. Sa ndwiched between is a ra nge of chapters
applying discourse theory to issues of identity, ideology, and hegemony across the
globe, each chap ter applying particular concepts from th e discourse theory arsenal.
Political analysis emplo ying discourse theory is primari ly concerned with power.
A polit ical project will ‘atte mpt to weave toge ther different strands o f discourse in
an e ffort to dominate or organise a field of meaning so as to fix the identi ties of
objects and p ractices in a certain way’ (p. 3). The power to fix meaning s is t he
power to fix rel ations: defining how people think rend ers physical co ercion
superfluous. Any fixatio n is te mporary however, for orders of disco urse are fl uid
phenomena . A d iscourse comprises numerou s a rticulated and unarticul ated
positions that form no dal points or contested concept s (e.g. freedom, e fficiency). A
set of nodal point s in turn c onstitutes a d iscourse. Identities are similarly unfixed,
derived according to constructed boundaries and antagonisms between social self
and ot her. This logic of discourse theor y draws upon th e works of Derrida ,
Foucault, Saussure , and most importantly Ernesto Lacla u and Chantal Mouffe.
The role of text in discourse theory has not been clarified in this compendium.
The opening chapter states th e aut hors’ i ntention to avoid textual analysis, but
without a microfoundati on each chapter’s application of discourse theory becomes
empirically du bious. To an extent, texts have their own logic; a n ewspaper editorial
is a structured entity with its own dev ices, as well as the product of di scourse. Thus,
Clohesy’s analysis of Northern Ireland is weakened because he aggregate s
provisiona l claims for ju stice without atte ntion to variety within and b etween texts
of the studied discourse. This elucidates another problem: if discourses are left
vague a nd without ri gorous scrutiny, how can we be su re the Essex School hasn ’t
selected and portrayed discourses to validate their approach?
On its own terms, however, the app lication of discourse theory presented he re
represents a persuasive a dvertisement to scholars of so cial change. T he concept of
‘frontiers’ and the construction of an ene my through the logic of eq uivalence
appears on first glance simply to re-artic ulate Marxist class anal ysis, but sh owing
how fron tiers can b e a poli tical technique o r strategy to stabilise po wer and social
unity is rewarding, and may explain much (US) foreign po licy as well as instances
of nati onalism discussed with in the book. Further, drawing on Derrida’s
deconstruct ion of binary hierarchies a nd Lacan’s problemati sation of inside-
outside, of self and other, discourse theory avoids r educing all poli tics to
antagonis m. Chapters on homosexuals in Hong Ko ng and women in Chiap as take
To continue reading
Request your trial