- №3, 2016
- Lozova Olga
- Omelchenko Liudmyla
- Kutishenko Valentina
- Yacenko Tamara, Polianychko Olena, Pedchenko Oleksandra
- Pobirchenko Neonila
- Zelinska Tetiana
- Bila Irina
- Lishchynska Olena
- Zhuravlоvа Larysa, Shpak Mariia
- Osadko Olesia
- Sorokina Olena
- Kochubeynyk Olga
- Petrunko Olga
- Khazratowa Nigora
- Variagina Alina
- Myronchak Kateryna
- Klymenko Anastasia
- Rafikov Alexander
- Bieriushcheva Iryna
- Bevz Halyna, Kolpakova Anna
- Sklyaruk Anastasia
- Savchenko Yuriy
- Tepliuk Annа
- Kotok Maria
- All Pages
Kochubeynyk O. DISCOURSE AGONALITY AND RESOURCES OF ITS REALIZATION
Kochubeynyk Olga, Doctor Degree in Psychology, Senior Researcher, , the Head the Laboratory of Psychology Communication, Institute of Social and Political Psychology, NAPS Ukraine, Andriivska-st., 15, 04070 Kyiv, Ukraine,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To link to this article:
DOI https://doi.org/10.28925/2078-1687.2016.3.6671
Abstract
The article problematize the relationship of discourse to inequality, exclusion, subjugation, dominance and privilege. The linkages between discourse, modes of social organization, lived experience and strategies of resistance is discussed. Discourse is understood as both an expression and a mechanism of power, by which means particular social realities are conceived, made manifest, legitimated, naturalized, challenged, resisted and reimagined. The term discourse has also been used to designate particular ‘modes of talking’ associated with particular social institutions and reproduced by them. It means that social institutions produce specific ways or modes of talking about certain areas of social life, which are related to the place and nature of that institution.
The main attention in the article is paid to illuminating the generative power of discourse in constructing, sustaining and challenging inequitable modes of social organization.
The author has proposed a model that accounts for the two ways in which power is present in discourse and thus in society - a model which might be used as a basis for the development of a framework for discourse analysis as well as for the conceptualization of social change and its relation to language change.
The author has used the notion of agon to explain some processes which occurred in constructing of social reality. Agon comes from the Greek word agōn, which is translated with a number of meanings, among them «contest,» «competition at games,» and «gathering». Agonality (agon) is declared as main specialty of discourse. It is proposed to see in the agonality the striving of discourse to its own self-assertion, which is manifested in the clash of forces, which potentially lies in social inter-relations.
The author also considers the category of «symbolic violence» as a function of the power, the ability to impose values and recognize their legitimacy. In the social system of symbolic violence is implemented through the discursive implications and is carried out in two ways - through the textual and non-textual resources.
Keywords: competitiveness; discursive struggle; social competition; symbolic power; symbolic violence.
References
- Burd'e, P. (1999). Duh gosudarstva: genezis i struktura bjurokraticheskogo polja [Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field]. St. Petersburg, The Institute of Sociology of the RussianAcademy of Sciences (rus).
- Burd'e, P. (2007). Sociologija social'nogo prostranstva [Sociology of Social Space]. Moscow, Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg, Aleteya (rus).
- Efimenko, T. N. (2014). Reprezentacija persuazivnosti verbal'nymi i neverbal'nymi jazykovymi sredstvami v prezentacionnom diskurse [Representation of persuasiveness by means of verbal and nonverbal language ways in the presentation discourse]. Bulletin of MoscowStateRegionalUniversity. Series: Linguistics, 2, 25-31 (rus).
- Zhizhek, S. (2010). O nasilii [About violence]. Moscow, Europe (rus).
- Kljajn, N. (2008). No logo. Ljudi protiv brjendov [No logo. People against brands]. Moscow, Good book (rus).
- Loginova, I. Ju. (2005). Persuazivnost' kak mehanizm vozdejstvija v politicheskom diskurse: programma politicheskoj partii i manifest [Persuasiveness as the mechanism of action in the political discourse: the program of a political party and manifest]. St. Petersburg, GUJeF (rus).
- Polujkova, S. Ju. (2013). Suggestivnye harakteristiki sovremennogo prosvetitel'skogo diskursa [Suggestive characteristics of modern educational discourse]. Bulletin of OmskUniversity, 1 (67), 89-93 (rus).
- Rusakova O. F., Rusakov V. М. (2008). PR-diskurs: Teoretiko-metodologicheskij analiz (PR-Discourse: Theoretical and methodological analysis). Ekaterinburg: Institute of Philosophy and Law (rus).
- Fuko, M. (1994). Slova i veshhi. Arheologija gumanitarnyh nauk [The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences]. St. Petersburg, A-cad (rus).
- Hjojzinga, J. (1992). Homo Ludens [Homo Ludens] Moscow, Progress (rus).
- Hilgartner, S., Bock Ch. (2008). Rost i upadok social'nyh problem: koncepcija publichnyh aren [The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model] Social Reality, 2, 73-94 (rus).
- Chernjavskaja, V. E. (2006). Diskurs vlasti i vlast' diskursa: problemy rechevogo vozdejstvija [The discourse of power and the power of discourse: problems of speech influence] Moscow, Flinta (rus).
- Shejgal, E. I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse] Moscow, Gnosis (rus).
- Conrad Ch. (1981). Agon and rhetorical form: The essence of «old feminist». Communication Studies. No. 32(1). Р.45-53. DOI: 10.1080/10510978109368077 (eng).
Full Text: PDF (ukr)