Social constructivist discourseanalysis
has, since the early 1990s, become increasingly popular across the social
sciences, including international relations. The aim of this chapter is to
outline the possibilities for the use of discourseanalysis in the study of
European foreign policy. Pure rationalists often dismiss EU foreign policy
as ‘just words’ or ‘declaratory diplomacy’ as it is
This book reviews a variety of approaches to the study of the European Union's foreign policy. Much analysis of EU foreign policy contains theoretical assumptions about the nature of the EU and its member states, their inter-relationships, the international system in which they operate and the nature of European integration. The book outlines the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. It sets out to explore the research problem using a political-cultural approach and seeks to illuminate the cognitive mind-maps with which policy-makers interpret their political 'realities'. The book provides an overview and analysis of some of the non-realist approaches to international relations and foreign policy, and proposes an analytical framework with which to explore the complex interplay of factors affecting European foreign policy. The book suggests one way of seeking theoretical parsimony without sacriﬁcing the most deﬁning empirical knowledge which has been generated about Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) over the years. It argues that while the sui generis nature of CFSP presents an acute problem for international relations theory, it is less pronounced with regard to traditional integration theory. The book discusses the dimensions of European foreign policy-making with reference to the case of arms export controls. Situated at the interface between European studies and international relations, it outlines how the EU relates to the rest of the world, explaining its effort towards creating a credible, effective and principled foreign, security and defence policy.
This book analyses black Atlantic studies, colonial discourse analysis and postcolonial theory, providing paradigms for understanding imperial literature, Englishness and black transnationalism. Its concerns range from the metropolitan centre of Conrad's Heart of Darkness to fatherhood in Du Bois's The Souls of Black Folk; from the marketing of South African literature to cosmopolitanism in Achebe; and from utopian discourse in Parry to Jameson's theorisation of empire.
transformations that take place through the dialectic between the
state and what it perforce negates as a condition of its existence’ (p. 87). I
want to suggest that Lloyd’s formalism proves, on the contrary, antithetical to a materialist approach.
I choose this article for discussion because it seems to condense a
number of current dispositions in Western anti-foundationalist critical
theory, political critique, and colonial discourseanalysis. Lloyd’s concern
with Enlightenment ideologies is shared by a growing number of postcolonial critics. His work corresponds to the
2012 and 2015 decisions to return African migrants to their country of
origin or to third countries.
Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on the
legitimisation of these technologies of blocking and exclusion in the
Israeli political discourse. More specifically, through a discourseanalysis of political actors’ public speeches and parliamentary
debates, I seek to answer the following questions
analysis of various New Labour texts that utilises a method of
critical discourseanalysis adapted from the work of Fairclough and
of Laclau and Mouffe. 1 Furthermore I argue that this particular concept
of citizenship is inherently exclusionary in its operationalisation
within policy. These exclusionary effects can be seen in New
Labour’s operationalisation of their particular discourse of
government. I am not arguing that such people had any cynical plans to
destroy other nations or promote violence as such, nor that they are guilty by
association of ‘ethnic cleansing’. Nevertheless, in their own ways, they
contributed to the escalation of events by adding more fuel to the fire; and
sometimes their arguments were used in ways that they neither intended nor
could have foreseen.
Throughout this book, I will be using a form of discourseanalysis to
explore the themes, ideas and vocabulary present in Serbian and Croatian
propaganda. I have used a qualitative
basic ideas advanced by discourseanalysis, social
constructionists, and symbolic interaction approaches, as well as ideas taken from
feminist and queer scholarship.
The surge in singlehood literature published from around 2000 onwards undoubtedly contributes to a more critical reading of prevalent representations of single
women. It also challenges widespread hegemonic assumptions about them. The literature responds to what is now a well-established fact, namely that more and more
people are living on their own. Scholars like Shelly Budgeon (2008; 2015) Michael
attachments from which people speak and act.8
Discourse, language and visual imagery do not simply reflect or
describe reality. They play an integral role in constructing reality and
experience, in the ways that we know and understand the world, and in
what we assume to be natural or normal. Discourseanalysis can tell us
a great deal about how social forces influence what individuals do, say
and think. Research that uses discourse as its analytical tool concentrates
on the accounts, understandings and meaning repertoires of the participants, rather than on their individual
discourseanalysis, its possible effect
on the future theorisation of non-Asian materials.
Critical Quarterly subsequently carried a negative description of my
piece as the work of a neo-colonialist; in criticising her I performed a gesture analogous to ‘the coloniser’s displacement of the colonised’.7 Spivak,
my critic suggested, was a ‘representative colonised voice’. In his haste to
impute a neo-colonialist subject-position to me, Pimomo did not stop to
question the large problems attached to conferring colonised ‘representativeness’, nor did it occur to him, when