Abstract
Discourse theory is, at its core, a theory of politics: of the hegemonic formation of social relations — of discourses — that necessarily involve hierarchies of power and relations of inclusion and exclusion. As such, discourse is, in essence, political. And since discursive articulations and contestations rely on forms of mediation, ranging from body language to mass media representations, discourse theory can be thought of as fundamentally about media politics. Moreover, given its commitment to an examination of the discursive configurations of power constituting social relations, and its identification of practical strategies for changing such configurations, discourse theory can be understood as offering an approach to the critique of media politics, and indeed an approach to doing critical media politics.
Much thanks to Sean Phelan for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arditi, B. (2007). Post-hegemony: politics outside the usual post-Marxist paradigm. Contemporary Politics, 13(3), 205–26.
Barnett, C. (2004). Deconstructing radical democracy: articulation, representation, and being-with-others. Political Geography, 23(5), 503–28.
Beasley-Murray, J. (2003). On posthegemony, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 22(1), 117–25.
Beasley-Murray, J. (2010). Political theory and Latin America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carpentier, N. & Spinoy, E. (2008). (Eds). Discourse theory and cultural analysis: Media, arts, and literature. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Critchley, S. (2004). Is there a normative deficit in the theory of hegemony. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 113–22). London: Routledge.
Dahlgren, P. (2007). Civic identity and net activism: The frame of radical democracy. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.), Radical democracy and the Internet: Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 55–72). New York: Palgrave.
Day, R. (2004). From hegemony to affinity: The political logic of the newest social movements. Cultural Studies, 18(5), 716–18.
Devenney, M. (2004). Ethics and politics in discourse theory. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 123–39). London: Routledge.
Devenney, M. (2006). Day two: Ontology and politics. Discourse Theory Summer School, Wellington, Victoria University.
Downey, J. & Fenton, N. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the public sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185–202.
Fraser, N. ( 1998). A future for Marxism. New Politics, 6(4). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue24/fraser24.htm.
Fraser, N. (2007). Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficiency of public opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4), 73–86.
Geras, N. (1987). “Post-Marxism?” New Left Review, 163 (May/June), 40–82.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glynos, J. & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.
Glynos, J. & Stavrakakis, Y. (2010). Politics and the unconscious: An interview with Ernesto Laclau. Subjectivity, 3(3), 231–44.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–26.
Horkheimer, M. (1974). Eclipse of reason. New York: Continuum.
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2007). Globalization, technopolitics, and radical democracy, In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.), The Internet and radical democracy: Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 17–36). London: Palgrave.
Kioupkiolis, A. (2010). Radicalizing democracy. Constellations, 17(1), 137–54.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (1996). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony. In J. Butler, E. Laclau & S. Žižek (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the Left (pp. 44–89). London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (2001). Democracy and the question of power. Constellations, 8(1), 3–14.
Laclau, E. (2004). Glimpsing the future. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 279–328). London: Routledge.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.
Laclau, L. & Bhaskar, R. (1998). Discourse theory vs. critical realism. Journal of Critical Realism, 1(2), 9–14.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1990). Post-Marxism without apologies. In E. Laclau (Ed.), New reflections on the revolution of our time (pp. 97–132). London: Verso.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. (2nd ed.). London: Verso.
Laclau, E., Worsham, L. & Olson, G. A. (1999). Hegemony and the future of democracy: Ernesto Laclau’s political philosophy. In G. A. Olson & L. Worsham (Eds.), Race, rhetoric, and the postcolonial (pp. 129–64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Marchart, O. (2002). Art, space and the public sphere(s). Some basic observations on the difficult relation of public art, urbanism and political theory. Eipcp. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://www.eipcp.net/transversal/0102/marchart/en.
Marchart, O. (2007). Post-foundational political thought: Political difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2005a). For an agonistic public sphere. In L. Tønder & L. Thomassen (Eds.), Radical democracy: Politics between abundance and lack (pp. 123–32). Manchester: University of Manchester Press.
Mouffe, C. (2005b). On the Political. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, C. (2007). Artistic activism and agonistic spaces. Art & research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, 1(2). Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v1n2/pdfs/mouffe.pdf
Mouffe, C., Carpentier, N. & Cammaerts, B. (2006). Hegemony, democracy, ago-nism and journalism: An interview with Chantal Mouffe. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 964–75.
Mouffe, C., Laclau, E. & Angus, I. (1999). An interview with Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau. Knowledge Network, British Colombia Broadcasting.
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordances, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.
Norval, A. (2007). Aversive democracy: Inheritance and originality in the democratic tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palczewski, C. H. (2001). Cyber-movements, new social movements, and counter-publics. In D. Brouwer & R. Asen (Eds.), Counterpublics and the state (pp. 9–27). New York: SUNY Press.
Peck, J. (2006). Why we shouldn’t be bored with the political economy versus cultural studies debate. Cultural Critique, 64(Fall), 92–126.
Robinson, A. & Tormey, S. (2007). Beyond representation? A rejoinder. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(1), 127–37.
Salazar, J. F. (2003). Articulating an activist imaginary: Internet as counter public sphere in the Mapuche movement, 1997/2002. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 107(May), 19–30.
Smith, A. M. (1998). Laclau and Mouffe: the radical democratic imaginary. New York: Routledge.
Thoburn, N. (2007). Patterns of production: Cultural studies after hegemony. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 79–94.
Valentine, J. (2001). The hegemony of hegemony. History of the Human Sciences, 14(1), 88–104.
Veltmeyer, H. (2000). Post-Marxist project: An assessment and critique of Ernesto Laclau. Sociological Inquiry, 70(4), 499–519.
Wimmer, J. (2008). The publics behind political Web campaigning: The digital transformation of “classic” counter-public spheres. In S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip & J. Niesyto (Eds.), Political campaigning on the Web (pp. 31–52), Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Ylä-Anttila, T. (2005). The world social forum and the globalization of social movements and public spheres. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 5(2), 423–42.
Zhang, W. (2006). Constructing and disseminating subaltern public discourse in China. Javnost-The Public, 13(2), 41–64.
Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.
Žižek, S. (2000). Holding the place. In Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Žižek, S. (Eds.) Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 308–329). London: Verso.
Žižek, S. (2006). Master class on Jacques Lacan: A lateral introduction, 25th May–20th June. London. Birkbeck College.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Lincoln Dahlberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dahlberg, L. (2011). Discourse Theory as Critical Media Politics? Five Questions. In: Dahlberg, L., Phelan, S. (eds) Discourse Theory and Critical Media Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230343511_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230343511_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32549-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-34351-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)