Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conspicuous by Presence: The Empty Signifier ‘Interdisciplinarity’ and the Representation of Absence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exploring Silence and Absence in Discourse

Part of the book series: Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse ((PSDS))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to theorize absence and its representation in the empty signifier within poststructuralist discourse theory following Laclau and Mouffe. It is by way of empty signifiers that absence relates to hegemony. Discourse theory, in contrast to (Critical) Discourse Analysis, builds on a social ontology meaning that its point of departure is signifying practices rather than linguistic analysis—practices that involve different means of representation such as a fixed, floating or empty signifier; while the means of representation and their function are different, their linguistic manifestation, i.e. their form, is identical.

The example used throughout the chapter is the signifier ‘interdisciplinarity’ which can be both (partially) fixed, floating and empty. As it is only the empty signifier that represents absence, the challenge is how to distinguish the empty signifier from a signifier that is floating or a signifier that is partially fixed. The form of the signifier is identical in all three cases, but their function is not. This chapter is an exploration of the challenges of theorizing absence through the identification of the empty signifier. A model of signification and the logic of hegemony is developed that may serve as a guide to exploring the emptying and filling processes of the signifier in the tension between particularity and universality. The chapter traces concrete practices and logics of equivalence and difference using an analytical distinction between the function of the signifier and its linguistic manifestation to encourage further research into the linguistic aspects of discourse theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Absence is also described as an ‘absent universality’, ‘absent totality’ or ‘absent fullness’ (Thomassen, 2005, p. 309), ‘inherent lack’ (Glynos et al., 2009) or ‘incomplete order’ (Howarth, 2015), and the ‘universal’ is variously described as an ‘empty space’ or ‘empty place’ (Torfing, 1999). For a detailed discussion, see Zerilli (1998), Torfing (1999), Norval (2000), Laclau (2000, 2001). And specifically for a discussion of how new spaces of representation may be constituted by myths and imaginaries, see Norval (2000) and Madsen (2016).

References

  • Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., et al. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). The specificity of the scientific field. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 31–50). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K., & Klein, J. T. (2005). Promoting interdisciplinary research: The case of the academy of Finland. Publications of the Academy of Finland, Series No. 8/05.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, N., & De Cleen, B. (2007). Bringing discourse theory into media studies: The applicability of discourse theoretical analysis (DTA) for the study of media practises and discourses. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(2), 265–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, D., & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: Sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity. Hybrid Vigor White Chapters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chiapello, E., & Fairclough, N. (2002). Understanding the new management ideology: A transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2011). Discourse theory as critical media politics? Five questions. In L. Dahlberg & S. Phelan (Eds.), Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 41–63). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2011). Mobilizing discourse theory for critical media politics: Obstacles and potentials. In L. Dahlberg & S. Phelan (Eds.), Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 222–249). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1975). I, pierre rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister, and my brother: A case of parricide in the 19th century. Iowa City, IA: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., Albert, M., & Prainsack, B. (2016). Introduction: Investigating interdisciplinarities. In S. Frickel, M. Albert, & B. Prainsack (Eds.), Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: Theory and practice across disciplines. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasze, G. (2007). The discursive constitution of a world-spanning region and the role of empty signifiers: The case of francophonia. Geopolitics, 12(4), 656–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Norval, A. J., & Speed, E. (2009). Discourse analysis: Varieties and methods (No. NCRM/014). National Centre for Research Methods, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D. (Ed.). (2015). Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, populism and critique. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., & Griggs, S. (2006). Metaphor, catachresis and equivalence: The rhetoric of freedom to fly in the struggle over aviation policy in the United Kingdom. Policy and Society, 25(2), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and political analysis. In D. Howarth, A. Norval, & Y. Stavrakakis (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis identities, hegemonies and social change (pp. 1–23). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A. (2013). In defense of disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolutions of our time. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (1993). Power and representation. Politics, Theory, and Contemporary Culture, 36, 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (1995). Subject of politics, politics of the subject. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 7(1), 146–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (1996a/2007). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (1996b). Why do empty signifiers matter to politics? In E. Laclau (Ed.), Emancipation(s) (pp. 36–46). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (2000). Constructing universality. In J. Butler, E. Laclau, & S. Žižek (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 281–307, at pp. 296–307). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (2001). Democracy and the question of power. Constellations, 8(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (2004). Glimpsing the future. In S. Critchley (Ed.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 279–328). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1987). Post-marxism without apologies. New Left Review, 166, 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, M., & Weldes, J. (2004). Methodological reflections on discourse analysis. Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, D. (2016). Liberating interdisciplinarity from myth: An exploration of the discursive construction of identities in information studies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2697–2709. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, D. (in review). Understanding ambiguities in interdisciplinarity studies through discourse theory. A critical analysis of two discourses—or why the ‘silo rhetoric’ is so pervasive. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norval, A. J. (2000). The things we do with words—Contemporary approaches to the analysis of ideology. British Journal of Political Science, 30(2), 313–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partington, A. (2014). Mind the gaps: The role of corpus linguistics in researching absences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(1), 118–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, S., & Dahlberg, L. (2011). Discourse theory and critical media politics: An introduction. In L. Dahlberg & S. Phelan (Eds.), Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 1–40). Basingstoke: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F. (1981/2011). Course in general linguistics. Suffolk: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter, M., & Storjohann, P. (2015). Patterns of discourse semantics: A corpus-assisted study of financial crisis in British newschapter discourse in 2009. Pragmatics & Society, 6(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (2013). Beyond common ground: A transdisciplinary approach to interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. In M. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, & J. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research (pp. 82–102). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2013). Investigating absence in press discourses of migration (poster). Retrieved from https://sussex.academia.edu/CharlotteTaylor/Talks

  • Taylor, C. (2014). Investigating the representation of migrants in the UK and Italian press A cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(3), 368–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen, L. (2005). Antagonism, hegemony and ideology after heterogeneity. Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(3), 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, argument, and challenges. In D. R. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 1–32). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uldam, J. (2010). Fickle commitment: Fostering political engagement in ‘the flighty world of online activism’. Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School. PhD Series 35.2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, S., & Boon, B. (2014). Engaging with a Laclau & mouffe informed discourse analysis: A proposed framework. Qual Research in Orgs & Mgmt, 9(4), 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerilli, L. M. (1998). This universalism which is not one. Diacritics, 28(2), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zienkowski, J. (2012). Overcoming the post-structuralist methodolocial deficit-metapragmatic markers and interpretive logics in a critique of the Bologna process. Pragmatics, 22(3), 501–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zienkowski, J. (2017). Articulations of self and politics in activist discourse: A discourse analysis of critical subjectivities in minority debates. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Dorte Madsen

Authors
  1. Dorte Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Modern Languages and European Studies, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

    Melani Schröter

  2. School of English, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom

    Charlotte Taylor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Madsen, D. (2018). Conspicuous by Presence: The Empty Signifier ‘Interdisciplinarity’ and the Representation of Absence. In: Schröter, M., Taylor, C. (eds) Exploring Silence and Absence in Discourse. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64580-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64580-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64579-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64580-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation