Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has probably made the most comprehensive attempt to develop a theory of the inter-connectedness of discourse, power and ideology and is specifically concerned with the role that discourse plays in main-taining and legitimizing inequality in society. While CDA’s general thrust has been towards the analysis of linguistic structures, some critical discourse analysts have begun to focus on multimodal discourses because of the increasingly impor-tant role these play in many social and political contexts. Still, a great deal of CDA analysis has remained largely monomodal. The principal aim of this chapter is therefore to address this situation and demonstrate in what ways CDA can be deployed to analyse the ways that ideological discourses can be communicated, naturalised and legitimated beyond the linguistic level. The chapter also offers a rationale for a multimodal approach based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), by which it is directly informed

Institutional Discourse

Institutions (and how they work) have long been the object of many investigations in the fields of media, cultural, and organizational studies. More recently, there has been a “linguistic” turn in the study of institutions with many language-focused explo- rations of how power and discourse may function in specific institutional and organi- zational settings, such as schools, courtrooms, corporations, clinics, hospitals, and pris- ons. Many of these studies have been concerned with the ways in which language is used to create and shape institutions and how institutions in turn have the capacity to create, shape, and impose discourses on people. Institutions thus have considerable control over the organizing of our routine experiences of the world and the way we classify that world. They also have the power to foster particular kinds of identities to suit their own purposes.

Foreign Policy as Ethics: Toward a Re-Evaluation of Values

This article notes that while ethics is increasingly talked of in foreign policy, it remains a blind-spot for FPA. It argues that this must be rectified through a critical approach which conceptualises foreign policy as ethics. The first section examines how even constructivist approaches, which are highly attuned to the intersubjective sphere, still generally avoid dealing with morality. The second section looks at the possibilities and limits of one piece of constructivist theorizing that explores the translation of morality into foreign policy via ‘norms’. This demonstrates the problems that a constructivist account, with its tendency toward explanatory description without evaluation, will always face. The final section argues, through an examination of EU foreign policy (from 1999-2004) and its innovative use of ‘hospitality’, that FPA must critically reassess the value of the norms and principles by which foreign policy operates in order to suggest potentially more ethical modes of encounter.

Ethics, power and space: International hospitality beyond Derrida

This article argues for the importance of hospitality in discussions of international ethics, suggesting that, while Jacques Derrida’s thought on the concept ought to be central, we also need to go beyond it. In particular, Derrida’s focus on the threshold moment of sovereign decision has the effect of reinforcing International Relations’ focus on the state as the only ethical actor and space. In contrast, this article suggests that we think of hospitality as a spatial relation with affective dimensions and a practice that continues once the guest crosses the threshold of the home. Conceived as such, hospitality reveals a constitutive relation between ethics, power and space, which directs us to the way hospitality produces international spaces and manages them through various tactics seeking to contain the resistant guest. This argument is illustrated through an examination of perhaps the most urgent of contemporary international ethical spaces: the refugee camp.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.

Ethics in sexual behavior assessment and support for people with intellectual disability

Sexuality is an issue of equality, rights, and ethics, especially when it comes to the sexuality of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This paper offers a discussion of ethics related to the assessment and intervention supports of sexual behavior in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A brief history of sexuality and disability is presented. Issues of sexual abuse of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and the laws related to sterilization, pornography, sexual rights, and consent are explored. Finally, specific ethical concerns related to intervention by behavior analysts in the realm of sexual behavior are examined.

The ethics of ethical debates in peace and conflict research: Notes towards the development of a research covenant

This article outlines the case for peace and conflict researchers to formulate a research covenant to better shape their ethical obligations and responsibilities. This is an urgent necessity given that ethical debates have in some proponents become emotive and are not conducted in an ethical manner. In coming to this assessment, the article reviews trends in the research ethics literature and draws out some of the generic issues addressed in a review of the personal reflexivity that an assortment of individual peace and conflict researchers have engaged in when recounting their fieldwork experiences. These generic issues are reformulated in an attempt to codify appropriate ethical practice in peace and conflict research, and they go towards determining the contents of the research covenant. It is suggested that the research covenant is a more ethical way to debate the ethics of peace and conflict research.