Social Discourse: Practice, Analysis, and Interpretation
Social Discourse as Social Practice
Discourse as Social Practice
Discourses are a form of social practice, more than simple language (verbal or non-verbal). The words and expressions within a discourse have the intent and ability to modify or change the social reality in which they are pronounced. For example, a judge adjourning a meeting is an act that goes beyond the words spoken.
Individuals also use discourse to justify and express their unique worldview and ideology. This includes justifying, persuading, stigmatizing, rejecting, including, or excluding. Ideology also dictates what can be said in different contexts, placing individuals in their specific positions within the social structure. For instance, the clergy’s discourse to the poor differs from that to the nobles, emphasizing submission in the former and divine servitude in the latter.
Discourses are produced and received with a purpose that extends beyond the literal words, involving an intention between the producer and receiver. Discourse is more than language; it is language exchanged. According to Bourdieu, discourse often addresses other languages and subjects, either extolling or disqualifying their content, seeking opportunities in different contexts. Thus, we can distinguish between an external logic (ideological and social) and an internal logic (language) within discourses.
Defining discourse for analysis depends on the various disciplines that address it, such as structuralist, anthropological, ethnographic, sociolinguistic, and ethnomethodological approaches. For social scientists, social discourse cannot be conceived outside a social subject. It is produced through discourse that circulates certain representations of social reality. In this sense, discourses are social representations containing values, ideas, habits, social practices, and relations with the subjects who express them. Researchers access a double level:
- Discursive practices allow access to and knowledge of the codes and communication standards through which subjects relate, name, and classify the reality that affects them.
- Discourse recreates an initial order or map by which individuals are recognized and directed in their world, serving as a reference for taking sides in social situations.
Both levels help understand the broader differences in discourse, which reflect social differences between groups or individuals. Researchers can use discourse analysis to be more aware of their role as social subjects within the social and institutional structure, aiding in understanding social problems from the perspectives of the agents involved.
The Practice of Discourse Analysis
Contradictions in Discourse Analysis
The first contradiction in discourse analysis is that analysis is contrary to the nature of the text. Analysis involves breaking down the text into smaller components for understanding, while the text as discourse refers to a whole unit of reference. The meaning underlies any text interpretation. Thus, discourse analysis should break down elements to reconstruct and interpret them again.
The multidisciplinary nature of discourse means that the object of study can be approached from different disciplines. Analysis draws from various schools and authors, but the key is its recognition as an operational tool for social research.
According to their specific uses, there are three levels of approximation to analytic practice:
- Informational/Quantitative
- Structural/Contextual
- Social/Hermeneutic
Each level has different uses and constraints that must be met in social research.