Language, discourse and politics

After discussing the meaning of the word politics, this paper shows that there are four possible approaches to the issue of the relationships between language, discourse and politics: a) the intrinsic political nature of language; b) the relations of power between discourses and their political dimension; c) the relations of power between languages and the political dimension of their usage and; d) linguistic policies. This paper addresses only the first two of these items. Languages have an intrinsically political nature because they subject their speakers to their order. The acts of silencing operationalized in discourse manifest a relation of power. The spread of discourses in the social space is also subject to the order of power. The use of language may be the space of pertinence, but is also that of exclusion, separation and even the elimination of the other. Therefore, language is not a neutral communication tool, but it is permeated by politics, by power. Because of the dislocations that it produces, literature is a form of swindling language, unveiling the powers that are imprinted on it.

Cannibal rights: Intertextuality and postcolonial discourse in the Caribbean region

"The history of the Caribbean," says Roberto Gonzalez Echevarria in his book on Alejo Carpentier, "is one of beginnings or foundations" (252). The Caribbean, in thi'i sense, sets the scene for Latin American history. Caribbean writers' attempts to retrieve or, better, refashion their cultural origins prefigure the collective struggle of a New World continent to imagine itself into the future. Imagination clashes here with memory; for like many of their Latin American counterparts, Anglo-Caribbean writers are often torn between an almost involuntary desire to remember and an urgent need to reinvent. [Extract]

From idola conceptiones to discourse analysis: A response to Bart Crum

Crum's notion of idola as a conceptual fallacy is interesting, somewhat helpful, yet potentially limiting in a critique of research in PE if one is to accept a postmodern or poststructuralist position. In line with a poststructuralist position, a strength in Crum's application of idola is the recognition that research in PE is constituted by the researcher and their social world which, in turn, constitutes the researcher. Limitations to Crum's idola thesis arise when the notion is used to suggest that as a result of the researcher's lack of conceptual clarity, the quest for knowledge or truth about PE pedagogy is undermined as this assumes that meanings can be unequivocal and precede a linear research process. In contrast, this response argues that a priority in research should be to examine how, and under what conditions, particular discourses come to shape PE practices in schools and universities. In a postmodern world, conceptual clarity should not be the goal but rather a coming to understand how PE knowledge and practice is being constructed across sites and contexts.