s-522 analyzing culture

+

S-522 Analyzing CultureLecture 04.07.11Masculinity, for exampleAnd again

+Goals of Today’s Lecture

Reflect on where we’ve been

Provide an overview Critical Discourse Analysis

Give some examples

Compare CDA, DAM, & FDA

+Discursive Psychology

Places language at center stage

Language is the topic—how people use language to construct attitudes, memories, and emotions

Action orientation—people produce descriptions or accounts to perform interactional business

Heterogeneous sub-field

Edley, N. (2001). Analysing Masculinity: Interpretive Repertoires, Ideologicial Dilemmas and Subject Positions. In M. Wetherall, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as Data (pp. 189-228). London: Sage Publications.

+Critical Discursive Psychology discourse is embedded within a historical context

speakers are both produced by and producers of discourse

speakers are bound by the cultural/historical choices available to them some ways of speaking about (and understanding) the world become hegemonic (or culturally dominant and made natural)

key question: Whose interests are best served by the naturalization/normalization of different discursive formulations?

+ Critical Discursive Psychology

We engage in a variety of symbolic and normative activities, including dress, movement, talk, and consumption to produce masculinity.

Gender is not something we are born with, rather we are socialized to produce gender identity—and this identity remains dynamic

These practices (rather than the biological make-up of men) confer status and power

The production of identity is a complicated social negotiation bound up in the exercise power—social, political, and economic privilege is at stake

Discursive approaches present a powerful challenge to the reductionism of traditional understandings of gender

Change can happen by shifting stories people tell about themselves and others

Case: The production of masculinity

+Critical Discursive PsychologyLanguage Resources1) interpretative

repertoires

2) ideological dilemmas

3) subject positions


repertoires



relatively coherent ways of talking about objects and events in the world, commonsense basis for social conversation

similar to Discourses

limit the construction of self and others (Potter & Wetherell, 1987)

American Beauty

300


repertoires



Lived ideologies are composed of the common sense beliefs, values, and practices of a given society or culture and are often inconsistent, fragmented and contradictory (Billig et al, 1988).

These contradictions produce the dilemmatic nature of lived ideologies (and are often constructed rhetorically)

examples: men should lead successful careers, men should spend quality time with their children

Entourage

Toyota Sienna


repertoires



The way people experience and feel about themselves and the world around them is, in part, a by-product of particular ideological or discursive regimes (Althusser, 1971).

Who we are always stands in relation to the available narratives (Hall, 1988).

examples: hero, macho man, rebel

Old Spice

Tongues Untied

Doritos

+Extensions on Discourse

Return to “d”iscourse/”D”iscourse (Gee 2005)

Intertextuality (Fairclough, 1992) & subjectivity

Discursive world/environment/strand

Some learning from sociolinguistics Recognition of pauses, intonation, word choice Looking for conspicuous absence Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1994) Microcoding (Van Leeuwen, 2008)

+Example: Ironizing masculinity One way of approaching a critical discourse/discursive psychology approach

Research Question: (something like) How do adolescent boys use irony to manage masculine positions?

Data from focus groups of boys aged 12-15

Close attention to both the discursive interchange and larger social structures Discursive analysis focuses on HOW masculine positions are managed (compared to other qual approaches): FOCUS ON MICRO-PROCESSES

Korobov, N. (2005). Ironizing Masculinity: How adolescent boys negotiate hetero-normative dilemmas in conversational interaction. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 13(2), 225-246.

+Ironizing masculinity

Four types of irony (to convey a meaning opposite to its original): Sarcasm (via Matter-of-Factness) Hyperbole Suppression (Biting one’s tongue) Rhetorical Questioning


+Sarcasm p. 231M: Do any of you guys have girlfriends?

J: I don’t want one

M: Jordan, you uh

J: don’t want to get married. I don’t

N: we know what Jordan likes

M: Oh yeah?

T: Excuse me. Excuse me (to J) YOU don’t want to get married

J: No

T: What are you gonna hire someone or

Ju: Or do you wanna man

T: right, you know that gays and lesbians are legal in VT

J: shut up

Ju: Jordan. We know your secret. It’s okay.

+Hyperbole p.234

What do guys like about girls? Chests, ass, a lot of stuff

What do girls like about guys? Do they like brains?

NOPE BIG BALLS HOME RUN TOOLS Twig and Berries

+Suppression pg. 236

Outwardly displaying that one is withholding information

+Rhetorical Questioning pg. 239

“Defined as a question whose answer is obvious or unanswerable in any kind of straightforward way.”

They are ironic because they indirectly make a point

“We like Britney Spears for her music?”

+Ironizing masculinity Findings:

Deployment of irony to manage hetero-normative dilemmas: boys can both exploit and call into question norms simultaneously

“irony as a discursive tool that is uniquely equipped for both subverting and (indirectly) asserting different masculine subject positions” (Korobov, 2005, p.241)

Developmental (cognitive) accomplishment managing ideological dilemmas of masculinity in indirect and nuanced ways

Paradox: young men are more socialized to resist explicit prejudice, but become more adept at “normalizing the prejudices of more contemporary forms of masculinity” (p.242)


+Heteronormativity at School Level: Dude, You’re a Fag! Normative/normalizing definitions of heterosexuality

Heteronormativity Inappropriate, too sexual, Pcness/verbal abuse, “labeled as evil,” promoting gay agenda.

“normalizing discourses maintain and support heteronormativity in all social contexts”

Racialized nature of the “fag”

International: Universality/“Local” meanings

Homonormativity (Gibbons, 2003)

+A Relationship between masculinity and heteronormativity Full Metal Jacket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBfZ4Jj09Fc&feature=fvwrel

+Comparing DAM, FDA, CDA

What are the similarities and differences between the Discursive Action Model, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, and Critical Discourse Analysis? Focus on Language Tools to get at process Scope of inquiry Unit/Level of Analysis Political/Theoretical Allegiances thus Topics of Inquiry structure vs. agency; cognition vs. speech act

+Parting Activity/Discussion

Evaluate the constructions of masculinity and argument advanced through discursive means

Where does the argument work?

Where does it feel like a stretch? What is omitted?

Masculinity in Disney Films

s-522 analyzing culture

Documents