Language and Power by Norman Fairclough Review by: Michael Huspek Language in Society, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar.

, 1991), pp. 131-137 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168214 . Accessed: 22/03/2013 16:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

REFERENCES Cerr6n-Palomino, R. (I976). GramdticaQuechua Junin-Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci6n. Hornberger, N. H. (in press). The first workshop on Quechua and Aymara writing. Llanque Chana, D., & L6pez, L. E. (I987). El desarrollo de un sistema de escritura para el aymara. Allpanchis 29/30: 539-71.

(Received

2o

August I990)

Reviewed by NANCY H. HORNBERGER Graduate School of Education University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA I9Io4-62I6

Languageandpower. Londonand New York:LongFAIRCLOUGH, NoRmAN man, I989. Pp. Xii + 259. voices the concernthat relationsof languageto powerand ideolFairclough by most languagescholars,and he attempts underestimated have been ogy whathe callscritby offeringas an alternative to correctfor this shortcoming ical languagestudy. Essentialto it is the idea that "languageconnectswith the social throughbeing the primarydomain of ideology, and throughbesome of ing a site of, and stake in, strugglesfor power"(I5). Synthesizing the major propositionsof sociolinguistics,pragmatics,and conversational attempts domain,Fairclough analysis,and exploringan expansiveempirical to clarifythe nature,extent,and effectsof the connection.The natureof the connection,he claims, is dialectical.Languageand society form "an internal and dialectical relationship" (23) as each term conditions and in turn is

conditionedby its relationalopposite. an adrepresents conception is rightto claimthat his dialectical Fairclough the relationof languageand sovance over approachesthat conceptualize ciety in ways that ignorepowerand ideology. The advancebringswith it a however,both conceptualand analytic,whichFairclough new problematic, a dialectical approachbrings Most specifically, fails to addresssatisfactorily. with it a doubletask for the analyst.First, he or she must account for how the dialecticunfolds in history. This involves, minimally,a formal specifibetweenlanguageand society so as to show what cation of the relationship
determinate forms are at work, how they operate, and whether they are necessary or contingent. Whereas this is a formidable task in and of itself, it is

made all the more difficultby the secondtask, whichis to give an accountof analysisiminstruments and preferred ing of how one's own subjectivity failure to I Fairclough's consider relationship. the dialectical upon pinge measureup to each of these two tasks in turn. dialecticalconceptionis the notion that "Language Basic to Fairclough's is a part of society;linguisticphenomenaare social phenomenaof a special
sort, and social phenomena are (in part) linguistic phenomena" (23). And to 131

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

further clarify the relationship, he states: "The whole is society, and language is but one strand of the social. And whereas all linguistic phenomena are social, not all social phenomena are linguistic - though even those that are not just linguistic (economic production, for instance) typically have a substantial, and often underestimated, language element" (23). Fairclough further solidifies this notion by defining language as a social practice that is "determined by social structures" (I7). He also stresses that "discourse has effects upon social structures, as well as being determined by them, and so contributes to social continuity and social change" (17). If these ideas seem contradictory, they are most likely intended to be. Still, if Fairclough desires to operate with a dialectical notion, it is incumbent upon him to specify the dialectic in ways that enable a clear working out of the apparently contradictory idea. Just how is it that language, as a social practice "determined by social structures," is able at the same time to produce its own effects on the social? To address this question with rigor would entail, I think, that Fairclough formalize the dialectical logic with which he operates. This would itself involve, minimally, that he specify the extent to which either the dialectic is brought to bear upon the subject matter as a theoretical construct or how it is culled by empirical means from the internal dynamics of the struggle. Either option might enable Fairclough to delineate tendencies that are imminently present in social structures and discursive practices, and to thereby systematically account for how discursive practices enable, and should enable, speakers to break free of, and to act upon, determinate social structures. As he opts for neither of these but instead is content to show empirically a wide range of instances of "dialectical struggle," his notion of the dialectic itself appears squishy. His "critical language study" frequently appears to bog down, unable to work itself out of the contradiction of social determinism on the one side, discursive effects upon the social on the other. The uncertain form and content of Fairclough's dialectic is evident in his analysis of power and ideology. According to Fairclough, power is an active determinant of discourse in two ways: as it acts in discourse and as it acts behind discourse. "Power in discourse" involves power holders within social interactions "controlling and constraining the contributions of nonpowerful participants"(46) as happens frequently, say, in doctor-patient relationships. "Power behind discourse" involves the effects of power in discourse, over time, becoming sedimented within society as speakers come to be routinely positioned in unequal relationships that are taken for granted as normal or natural. In this latter instance, the effects of power come to be sanctioned by the dominant ideology, though disguised by taken for granted notions of normalcy or naturalness. Both forms of power strongly influence spoken practices, the knowledge and beliefs that undergird such practices, the iden132

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

tities of discourseinteractants,and the ways their relationships come to be defined.Giventhe prevalence of powerand ideology,both in and behinddiscourse, Faircloughfaces the challengeof specifyinghis notion of dialectic in waysthat show how discourse on existingpower may havea countereffect relations- that is, how discourseis availableto speakersin ways that point beyond mechanicaldiscursivereproduction of a dominantideology. Faircloughoffers the notion of struggle:"discourseis the site of power struggles,and, in termsof 'powerbehinddiscourse',it is the stakein power struggles- for controlover ordersof discourseis a powerfulmechanism for sustainingpower"(74). Yet it is unclearthat the notion of strugglehas the tractionnecessaryto account for the complexitiesbuilt into the dialectical relationship betweenlanguageand power. He points to some interesting instancesof overt, strategic strugglewherepowerholders'attemptsto position othersby discursive meansarechallenged. (Forexample,he pointsto a newspaper articlethat representsfeministdiscourse,and he notes how vocabulary is used to oppose dominant meanings.) He also points to less overt instancesof struggle that may occurin discourse withoutspeakers' conscious awareness.(Here, he drawsupon termsof addressliterature.)But whereas his illustrations are suggestive,the overallanalysisfalls short of addressing suchcrucialquestionsas: Is struggle evidentin all discursive or only practices in a select few? What gives rise to struggle?How does the kind of struggle that is structurally but nonovertlypresentin various discourseforms get transformed into strategicstrugglemarkedby actors'consciousawareness? A stab is taken at addressing such questionsthroughformalization of the terms"destructuring" and "restructuring." occursin discourse Destructuring when contentsbecome ambiguous,relationsbetweenspeakersbecome unclearor confused,or subjects'positionsor socialidentitiesbecomeproblematic. SaysFairclough: "whatare experienced as individual to resolve attempts problemscan be interpreted as movesin social struggles towardsthe restructuring of ordersof discourse"(172). We can presumethis is what has occurred,say, withthe mentioned And we mighthereexpect feministdiscourse. dialecticalprincipleto show the movementfrom destructuring Fairclough's to restructuring. In a curiousmove, however,Fairclough insteaddrawsupon an extendedextractfrom an interviewof MargaretThatcherand discusses how it is, out of problematicdiscoursewheredestructuring is evident, that Thatcherutilizesher discursive skillsas a meansof restructuring. In chronivariousdiscursive clingThatcher's revealselementsof cremoves,Fairclough ativity that he shows at the same time to be possible only because of preexisting, socially determined enablements and constraints within Thatcher'scommunicative repertoire.Faircloughthen goes on to conclude that "thereare always particularsocial circumstances which enable [discourse],and constrainit, and whichmay even ... partiallyvitiateit" (I96). The Thatcher in and of itself, but it is ill-chosenas interview is interesting 133

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

a vehiclewith whichto illustrate of dediscursive struggleand its properties and restructuring. It neitheradequately in the forestructuring placesstruggle ground, nor does it highlightthe dynamicworkingsof the dialectic.Better of speakers to havedrawnfromthe discursive productions who, throughdeare challengingpower holders'reins of constructuring and restructuring, trol. Even were this to have been done, however, it is questionableas to whetherFairclough's dialectical notion of strugglewould measureup to the task. One of the conclusionsarisingout of the Thatcher text analysisis that and individual are not the oppositesthey ap"socialdetermination creativity pearto be" (I69), but it is difficultto discernhow he sees speakerswho are in oppositionto structures of dominationbeingable to destructure and ressuch structures. This is to tructure discoursewithoutultimately reproducing say, again, that his notion of dialecticis weak. This weaknessis evidentalso in his treatment of meaning.Meaningsand meaningsystems,claimsFairclough,are arbitrary and, as site and stake of power struggles,they can eitherbe pressedinto the serviceof a dominant and convertedinto "commonsense")or ideology (thusbeing "naturalized" be used by opponentsof the dominantideology in ways that may promote What specificallygeneratesthe struggleis and restructuring. destructuring not spelledout. We are given a sense that a dialecticis at work, but we are not supplied with any underlyinglogic, dynamicprinciple,or generative mechanism. Thus, we are nevercertainas to whetheroppositionalmeanings are a consequence of differencein discourse,of deof structural properties structuring/restructuring properties,of heightenedsocial consciousness,of a naturaldesire for freedom, or of society's productionof new material needs. overmeanings,one searches So, too, whenFairclough emphasizes struggle for some standardsor principlesby whichto gauge the natureof emergent and ongoingstruggles.But none are offered. Uncertainty thereforeprevails as to which oppositionalside in the struggleis offering a closer estimation of truthor of intrinsicmeaning.As Fairclough drawsupon no explicitidea of truth or meaning, we are again left with a fair amount of muddle. "Power," "arbitrary meanings," and "ideology" all seemto be contingent on struggle.This beingthe case, it is imperative that we have some understanding as to whichside in the struggleis right. But from Fairclough's account, it is not clearthat "rightness" is anything morethan a functionof whichside has superiorstrategy. Given the indeterminacy of meaningand struggle,the notion of subjectivity becomesespeciallyproblematic, both in termsof its own contentand as it relatesto the way Faircloughpositions himself as analyst. For Fairis inherently clough, the meaningof subjectivity ambiguous.One can simultaneouslybe the subjectof another'sdomination(e.g., subjectof the state) whilealso beingan activeagent(e.g., as are subjectsof a sentence)(39). As 134

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

arbitrariness of meaningalso attendsthe notion of subjectivity,Fairclough maintainsthat, "Thesocial processof producingsocial subjectscan be conover a period ceived of in terms of the positioningof people progressively (103). This said, of years- indeeda lifetime- in a rangeof subjectpositions" of course,we are compelledto ask: "Who,then, is this subject,Fairclough, who calls himself a criticalanalystof language?" criticalanalysisof languageinvolvesdescription, According to Fairclough, interpretation, and explanation. Because description follows from the the latteractivityis here most salient.All interpreanalyst'sinterpretation, tation of discourse,maintainsFairclough,consistsof two parts:interpretaare tion of discoursetexts, and their respectivecontexts. Interpretations in that "ideologies and powerrelationswhich alwayspotentially problematic
underlie them have a deep and pervasive influence .
. ." (I5 i).

Fairclough ar-

gues, however, that "criticallanguagestudy"constitutesan advance over other modes of analysisin that it recognizesthe social aspectsof text prothat andthereby"corrects delusionsof autonomy" ductionand interpretation we find, for example,in speechact theory. What ostensiblyfrees the critical analystfrom the kindsof ideologicalsnarethat noncriticalanalyststypto explanation,defined ically do not avoid is the move from interpretation within of socialstruggle as "amatterof seeinga discourse as partof processes a matrixof relationsof power"(I63). tools, Faircloughthen cautions Equippedwith these conceptual-analytic that criticalanalystsmustbe sensitivenot only to whatresources participants bringto bear when they produceand interpretdiscourse,but also "to what resourcesthey are themselvesrelyingupon to do analysis"(I67). In this regard, Faircloughtries to be as forthrightas he can by announcingthat his own resources are highlyinformedby socialistbeliefs. Moreover,he stresses from the less self-consciousdisthat his own resourcesare distinguishable course participantbecausethey "arederivedfrom a social theory"(167). Just But one finds it difficultto completelyacceptsuch pronouncements. is not made clear. what social theory informs Fairclough'sinterpretations is offeredas anythingmorethan a preferred Nor is it clearthat his "theory" meaning,one to be gainedor lost throughstruggle.Do we acceptit because it is theoretical?Or becauseit is the best theory we have? My own inclination to acceptit as eitherwould be contingentupon Fairclougheitherdemof theoryin relationto other forms of practiceor onstratingthe superiority of his theoryagainstrivaltheories.As he does the superiority demonstrating is only because,given neither,my inclinationto granthis theorysuperiority that Faircloughis in control of his own discourse,his strategyof authorizing some meaningsto the detrimentof othershas won the day. This, moreover, without hearingvery much from those who might be consideredhis theoreticalrivals. and explanation,Faircloughoffers a numberof Beyond interpretation 135

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

compellingprescriptions that follow from and rely on "criticallanguage Hereagainhe stresses the importance study"as a tool of socialemancipation. of struggleand dialectic:"struggle and the raisingof consciousnessare dialecticallyrelated:struggleopens people to the raisingof consciousness, whichempowers themto engagein struggle" (234). But Fairclough is not so in examininghow it is that speakers,left to theirown spomuch interested in and throughdiscourse ken resources and potentials,may incitethemselves toward progressiveforms of collectiveaction. He does not, for example, inherentdifferentiating point to what may be structurally propertiesexemin nor tactics as constituent elements plified discourse, does he examine that, in whatis not said. Rather,he asof struggle,may be ongoinglyinstantiated sertsthat, "Oppressed theiroppression peoplewill not recognize just because someonetakesthe troubleto pointit out to them;they will only cometo recof it; and theirown activityof strugognizeit throughtheirown experience to trulyunderstand the natureof their glingagainstit"(234).But for speakers are meaningful struggle,to becomefully consciousof how theirexperiences in termsof oppression, "there mustbe peoplewho havethe theoretical backgroundto enable[others] to act in this way, as well as sharing the experience of the oppressedto a sufficientextentfor them to be acceptedas catalysts" (234). Faircloughsingles out educatorsas those who potentiallyhave the "theoretical to operateas catalysts. background" Faircloughemphasizesthe need for greaterencouragementof critical thinkingin variedinstitutionalforms of life, and I do not want to quibble with him on this count. But the "theoretically informed" trainingprocedures he advocates,manyof whichare quitesuggestive,standin need of a clearer the role of theoryneedsto be morefully developed spellingout. Specifically, as it informsthe relationbetweenteacher-as-catalyst and the speechcommunity of learners,theircommunityexperiences and needs. The connectionof also needsshoringup - this theoryto Fairclough-as-subject/analyst/catalyst especiallyin light of the absenceof any clear-cutstandardsor valuesat the base of his overalleffort. As such, it is not alwaysentirelyclearthat his preamountto muchmorethanan insertion of criticalsubjectivity, scriptions operatingunderthe guise of theory, into the "dialectical" fray. WhereasI am to Fairclough's sympathetic project, I am not convincedthat the practices he recommends will appealto those who do not sharehis own ideological prolivities;nor do I think, given the way he builds his analysis, that they should. In conclusion,I wantto stressthat Fairclough's book is a significantcontribution to criticallanguage scholarship. It does an especially good job both in synthesizing empirical studiesof the relationship of language to powerand ideology and in drawingout some of the morecrucialconcernsfor analysts who engagein suchstudies.On both counts,the book has a greatdealto offer. Perhapsof even greatervalue, however,is that the book bringsto the 136

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

surfacesome majorproblematics that face anyonewho intendsto push forward in this area of inquiry.
Reviewed by MICHAELHUSPEK Department of Communication SUNY - Albany Albany, NY I22II

(Received 5 April I990)

power, and ideology:Studiesin politicaldis(ed.), Language, WODAK RuTH and Philadelphia: Theory,volume7). Amsterdam course(Seriesin Critical + 288. John Benjamins,I989. Pp. XX Language,Power, and Ideologycomprises13 articleson how languageconconflict.Theywerewritof powerand ideological stitutesa majordimension ten mostly by Austrianand Germanscholarswho drawheavilyon the data practices.The majorityof authorssharethe research of Europeandiscursive orientationof criticallinguistics.As definedby the volume editor, this traof powerinequalityfrom an hisditionof inquiryexaminesthe mechanisms torical perspectiveand throughthe investigationof "languagebehaviorin (xv). naturalspeech situationsof social relevance" and the extentto whichthey analyses of their depth varyin the The articles linguistics.In my opinof critical concerns theoretical directlyaddressthe Dijk'sstudyof the role Van Teun are contributions important more ion, the Strouhal'sintertextual Ernst of racism, in the reproduction media of Dutch FlorianMetz' articourt, an Austrian to report of a psychiatrist's analysis coverageof an ecologicalprotestevent, cle on a popularViennanewspaper's Sylvia Moosmuller's discussion of phonological variants in Austrian debates,and MarlisHellinger'scomparativeanalysisof lanparliamentary guage change and feministlanguagepolitics in seven Europeancases. Uta Quasthoff'sessay on stereotypes,WernerHolly's articleon credibilityand politicallanguage,and RuthWodak'sanalysisof the use of politicaljargons on these specifictopics. They containinare well groundedin the literature sights, but like Moosmuller'sarticle, they could have addressedmore diKlein's concernsof criticallinguistics.Gabrielle rectlythe centraltheoretical study of languagepolicy duringthe fascist periodof Italy and Rosita Rinanalysisof the historicallinkagebetweenthe languageof fudler Schjerve's data. However,they could have turismand Italianfascismhave interesting by comparativedata from another enrichedrespectively been considerably sociopoliticalcontext and by a brief analysisof alternativediscursivepractices in the Italianpoliticalarena. Language,Power, The contributionsof many articlesnotwithstanding, had made crossif authors cohesive more have been and Ideology could the majorthearticleand if they all had addressed to one another's references 137

This content downloaded from 134.193.117.53 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:11:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions