Yeranuhi Khachatryan

BA in English & Communication

Introduction to Discourse Analysis

Pr. Davit Isajanyan

Response Paper 3

05/15/2023
 The Marxist theory of discourse offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the

intricate relationship between language, power, and social structures. Within this theoretical

framework, three prominent thinkers-Louis Althusser, Ernesto Laclau, and Michel Pêcheux have

made significant contributions. Louis Althusser's focus on the subjectivity effect of discourse

highlights how language constructs and shapes individual subjectivities, particularly through the

interpellation of individuals into specific social roles. Ernesto Laclau, on the other hand,

emphasizes the impossibility of society as a coherent entity and explores how discourse becomes

a tool for constructing social identities and organizing political struggles. Michel Pêcheux's work

delves into the inscription of ideology within discursive practices, highlighting the ways in which

language reproduces and maintains power dynamics. To gain a comprehensive understanding of

the Marxist theory of discourse, it is crucial to compare and contrast these perspectives and

explore their intersections and divergences.

Louis Althusser's contribution to the Marxist theory of discourse centers on the impact of

discourse on subjectivities. He emphasizes that discourse plays a crucial role in constructing and

shaping individual subjectivities. Althusser contends that discourse serves as a significant site

where ideology operates, generating subject positions and interpellating individuals into specific

social roles. His concept of interpellation suggests that individuals are hailed by ideological

apparatuses through discursive practices, resulting in their identification with and internalization

of dominant ideologies. This perspective highlights the influential role of discourse in

reproducing and perpetuating power structures within society.

Ernesto Laclau, in contrast, focuses on the inherent fragmentation and impossibility of

society as a cohesive entity. He argues that society is characterized by diverse discourses and

antagonisms. Laclau considers discourse as a primary tool for constructing social identities and
organizing political struggles. His theory of discourse aims to account for the contingent and

contextual nature of social meaning, as well as the discursive processes through which political

subjects emerge. Laclau places particular emphasis on the articulation of different discourses and

the formation of hegemonic projects, aligning with his broader concern for the construction of

political identities.

Michel Pêcheux shifts the focus from ideology to discourse, exploring how ideology is

inscribed in and transmitted through discursive practices. He introduces the concept of

interdiscourse, which refers to the relationships and contradictions between different discourses

within a specific social formation. Pêcheux argues against the notion of discourse as a neutral or

transparent medium, emphasizing its role as a site of struggle and contestation. He highlights the

significance of language as a site of ideological production and reproduction, emphasizing how

discursive formations contribute to the maintenance of social relations and power dynamics.

When comparing the Marxist theory of discourse with the post-structuralist conception,

particularly influenced by Michel Foucault, we find that both perspectives share a critical stance

toward traditional notions of power and knowledge. However, they diverge in terms of their

emphasis and theoretical frameworks. The Marxist theory of discourse, represented by Althusser,

Laclau, and Pêcheux, places significant emphasis on the role of ideology, social relations, and

political struggle in shaping discourses and subjectivities. It highlights the interplay between

discourse and power structures, often seeking to reveal and challenge dominant ideologies.

On the other hand, the post-structuralist conception of discourse, influenced by Foucault,

shifts the focus to the ways in which power operates through discursive practices and the

production of knowledge. Foucault's genealogical approach emphasizes the historical

contingencies and specific power relations that shape discourses and the construction of truth. In

contrast to the Marxist theory of discourse, Foucault's perspective tends to decenter the role of

ideology, placing more emphasis on the intricate power dynamics and the productive aspects of

discourse.

Thus, the Marxist theory of discourse, as put forth by Althusser, Laclau, and Pêcheux,

provides valuable insights into the formation of subjectivities, the fragmentation of society, and

the reproduction of power through discursive processes. While both the Marxist theory of

discourse and the post-structuralist conception share a critical perspective on power and

knowledge, they diverge in terms of their theoretical emphases and frameworks. The Marxist

approach highlights the significance of ideology, social relations, and political struggle in

shaping discourses and subjectivities, aiming to uncover and challenge dominant ideologies. In

contrast, the post-structuralist perspective, influenced by Foucault, focuses on the ways in which

power operates through discursive practices and the production of knowledge, with an emphasis

on historical contingencies and power dynamics.