Advertisement

Politics, Identity and Discourse

  • Jay M. Woodhams
Chapter

Abstract

Understanding how our political identities are generated in discourse is critical in these uncertain political times. The voices of voters are a central, yet often overlooked, element in shaping political discourses, and hence merit explicit analytical focus. A critical realist approach to discourse analysis, combined with an interactional sociolinguistic approach to language-in-use, provides the tools necessary to fully appreciate the rich context that surrounds our talk. New Zealand is a case from which parallels can be drawn to representative democracies around the world.

References

  1. Archer, M. (1998). Introduction: Realism in the social sciences. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 189–205). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. (Original work published 1979).Google Scholar
  3. Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. Abingdon: Routledge. (Original work published 1975).Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, R. (2009). Scientific realism and human emancipation. Abingdon: Routledge. (Original work published 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browse, S. (2018). Cognitive rhetoric: The cognitive poetics of political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3108478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  15. Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335–354.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Czech Statistical Office. (2018). Volby.cz – Český statistický úřad. Retrieved from http://www.volby.cz.
  18. Damari, R. R. (2010). Intertextual stancetaking and the local negotiation of cultural identities by a binational couple. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(5), 609–629.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00456.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–173.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. (Eds.). (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Department of Internal Affairs. (2011). Local government in New Zealand. Local Councils. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz.
  22. Department of Internal Affairs. (2017). Local authority election statistics 2016. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Local-Elections-Local-Authority-Election-Statistics-2016.
  23. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Du Bois, J. W., & Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4), 433–451.  https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Electoral Commission. (2017, August 3). New Zealand’s system of government. Electoral Commission. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/new-zealands-system-government.
  28. Electoral Commission. (2018). New Zealand election results. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/.
  29. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915–939.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical realism and semiosis. Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1), 2–10.Google Scholar
  33. Fetzer, A. (2013). The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse. In A. Fetzer (Ed.), The pragmatics of political discourse: Explorations across cultures (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flatschart, E. (2016). Critical realist critical discourse analysis: A necessary alternative to post-Marxist discourse theory. Journal of Critical Realism, 15(1), 21–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2015.1118588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Foucault, M. (2002). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Abingdon: Routledge. (Original work published 1969).Google Scholar
  36. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Gold, H. (Ed.). (1992). New Zealand politics in perspective (3rd ed.). Auckland: Longman Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Gordon, C. (2004). ‘Al Gore’s our guy’: Linguistically constructing a family political identity. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 607–631.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504045034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gumperz, J. J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gumperz, J. J. (Ed.). (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gumperz, J. J. (1999). On interactional sociolinguistic method. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 453–472). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215–228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Gumperz, J. J. (2009). Contextualization conventions. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 598–606). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Johnstone, B. (2010). Locating language in identity. In C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and identities (pp. 29–36). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Joseph, J. E. (2010). Identity. In C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and identities (pp. 9–17). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  54. Manicas, P. (1998). A realist social science. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 313–338). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Martin, J. E. (2004). The house: New Zealand’s house of representatives 1854–2004. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  56. Miller, R. (Ed.). (2006). New Zealand government & politics (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mulgan, R. (2004). Politics in New Zealand (3rd ed.). Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 26(3), 287–306.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2603_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Office of the Clerk/Parliamentary Service. (2013, May 1). Our system of government. New Zealand Parliament. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/.
  61. Peirce, C. S. (1998). Of reasoning in general. In The Peirce Edition Project (Ed.), The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2, pp. 11–26). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1895).Google Scholar
  62. Sayer, A. (1997a). Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 473–488.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sayer, A. (1997b). Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond. The Sociological Review, 45(3), 453–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sayer, A. (2004). Why critical realism? In S. Fleetwood & S. Ackroyd (Eds.), Critical realist applications in organisation and management studies (pp. 6–20). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sims-Schouten, W., Riley, S. C. E., & Willig, C. (2007). Critical realism in discourse analysis: A presentation of a systematic method of analysis using women’s talk of motherhood, childcare and female employment as an example. Theory & Psychology, 17(1), 101–124.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307073153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Statistics New Zealand. (2018, February 26). 2013 census. Retrieved December 18, 2018, from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census.aspx.
  70. Transparency International. (2017). Corruption perceptions index 2017. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org.
  71. van Dijk, T. A. (1994). Discourse analysis as social analysis. Discourse & Society, 5(2), 163–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 38–53). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  75. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive construction of national identity (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wolfram, W. (1970). Sociolinguistic implications for educational sequencing. In R. W. Fasold & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), Teaching standard English in the inner city (pp. 105–119). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  77. Woodhams, J. M. (2015). A critical realist study of political identity in Aotearoa New Zealand: Materiality, discourse and context (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  78. Woodhams, J. M. (2019). An untrustworthy entertainer: Populist identities in the voices of New Zealand voters. In M. Macaulay (Ed.), Populist discourse: International perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay M. Woodhams
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations