The Theory of "Theory"
You want a theoretical perspective? Oh dear. It must be pointed out that when some people talk about "theory", this topic is all that they mean. As such, much (probably most, on a purely quantitative basis) of the writing on the subject constitutes the largest body of self-serving, obscurantist, pretentious emperor's tailoring bovine excrement to sully academic discourse since the gnostics or the alchemists (hence the basic joke in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum — Eco himself being one of the saner denizens of this swamp).
Try here for a more reliable and less cynical account. Click on "Dd" and scroll to find the link—there is no more direct route.
I have discussed the much less pretentious notion of "frame of reference" in another paper. If you must have an introduction to "discourse" which is reasonably comprehensible, try this:
The relationship between "discourse" and "frame of reference" is one which I have begun to understand as that between mould (discourse) and cast (frame) [One could say between "female" (discourse) and "male" (frame), but that would be to adopt an unnecessarily loaded discourse!)
A discourse is a way, pretty much any way, of talking about things. The choice of a discourse draws attention to what the speakers (or writers) think is important about the subject — or in the hands of critical commentators, what they are allowed to think is important about it.
Take the following much condensed examples of conversation:
This is one of those horrible seemingly simple statements which say so much as to lead to total disorientation, like, "In Java, everything is an object." [The discourse is programming rather than geography, or political polemic.]
- "How about offering a module on 'myth in modern society', based on Joseph Campbell's work. We could look at Jung, and Joyce, and Star Wars, and urban myths..."
- Response 1: "But would the students buy it? Remember, the bottom line is bums on seats."
- Response 2: "And what is the academic coherence of all that? It's just a mish-mash of a bit of so-called psychology, 20th century literature, and 'cultural studies'. Ugh!"
- Response 3: "It's a great idea. Undergraduates are really looking for ideas to live by, and since conventional religion no longer seem to offer any guidance, they would lap it up..."
Response 1 uses the discourse of "economic reality". It is a powerful and pervasive discourse in many areas of life, nowadays, not merely in academe. Indeed, it has reached the status of what the Italian political theorist Gramsci called "ideological hegemony": it is so dominant that when it is trotted out in discussion, the only response is Eric Morecambe's catch-phrase, "There's no answer to that!"
A hegemonic discourse is one which has become so embedded in a culture that it appears silly to ask "Why?" about its assumptions. It is capable not only of determining answers, but also the questions which can be asked.
- Economic reality is one such discourse; another is that of health. To question its assumptions with a statement such as, "I just like smoking—if it kills me, so what?" is perceived in many circles (but not all, because even hegemonic discourses have their own exceptions) as so stupid as to invite examination of the speaker's mental "health".
In discussion, playing a hegemonic card can trump (in the bridge, rather than flatulence, sense [or discourse]) all other cards. Much humour, including the crudest double-entendre comes from playing around with discourses.
Response 2 appeals to "academic purity". It is pretty weak nowadays. Whether that is a "good thing" or not depends on your "point of view" or "standpoint" — both of which are colloquial ways of referring to a preferred discourse.
Response 3 is interesting, because it acknowledges the supremacy of the "economic reality" argument. It starts off on a "developmental" or even "liberal education" agenda: teaching people something because it will "do them good" — but it moves on to assert that "they will lap it up" meaning that it will also get bums on seats. That is the "clincher" of the argument, but it is not in the same discourse as the initial claim.
The theorists point out that discourse is closely linked to power. Some forms of discourse may be thus "privileged", in the sense that using them identifies with and may gain the ear of influential social groups, such as appealing to economic justifications for academic decisions.
Some social groups do not get a hearing in society because their habitual forms of discourse are not privileged, not recognised as legitimate or even "sensible" by those who control the media and exercise power. Thus a major task of the women's movement in the 'seventies and later was to break through a credibility barrier (even among other women) so that their voice and their arguments, could be heard. At about the same time, however, the discourse of the "New Left" was acceptable, in a way which it could not be under "New Labour".
Various ethnic groups have the same problem; and it is interesting that despite Americans asking in bewilderment, "How can they hate us so much?" after September 11, they often do not seem to be able to hear the answers from the Islamic world. Right or wrong, we can argue with positions with which we disagree, under the umbrella of a shared discourse: but without the discourse, we cannot even hear them.
"Common sense", from this perspective, is just what it says. It is "common": it shares the discourse and hence the priorities of the rest of the community to whom it is addressed.
Discourses have different "ranges of convenience", and are articulated within different language codes. The cynical discourse which gets a cheap laugh at the expense of the government in a saloon bar is not the one which would actually yield any solutions to real problems were the wise guy really the Prime Minister. The discourses which bind us to our community may well be those which equip us least to receive messages from outside it — such as from Islamists. See Douglas (1973) for a fascinating anthropological exploration of this theme.
Douglas M (1973) Natural Symbols London; Penguin
So what?
The literature on "critical reflection" and "perspective transformation" in adult education makes it clear that it is achieved by the learner stepping outside her or his habitual discourse or frame of reference, and reflecting on her past and prior learning in a new way. (See Moon, 1999 for an accessible account relating this to "reflective practice")
The tools for thought we are examining, even simple ones such as analogies, have the potential to promote such change (or of course also to reinforce existing "common sense").
To tie this in with my other concerns: such challenging of one's habitual framework of thought can be experienced as much as loss, as liberation.
To reference this page copy and paste the text below:
ATHERTON J S (2002) Tools: [On-line]: UK: Available: Accessed:
©
James Atherton
last updated
15 May 2002