Role of the non-discursive realm

Depending on the degree to which discourses are seen as constitutive, the different social constructionist approaches differ from each other as to whether discourses are all-conclusive and to the role played by social practices.

Theoretical frameworks promoting the constitutive aspects of discourses, such as that of Foucault's, emphasize the power of discourses in rendering objects

and social subjects to their service. Instead, Fairclough (2003) suggests a dialectic relationship, whereby 'the impact of discursive practice depends upon how it interacts with the preconstituted reality' (p. 60). The constraining effects of practices, of a preconstituted material reality are taken into account thereby creating a reality whereby discourses influence practices and vice versa. As demonstrated by Fairclough et al. (2002) discourses constitute reality by referring to semiotic aspects of texts²⁹:

'(...) because texts are both structuring and socially-structured, we must examine not only how texts generate meaning and thereby help to generate social structure but also how the production of meaning is itself constrained by emergent, non-semiotic features of social structure' (Fairclough et al. 2002:

4)

This type of analysis takes into consideration the social practices that influence the semiotic features outside the meanings constructed by language, the 'extra-semiotic conditions' (p. 4). This becomes obvious, for instance, with elements such as class and gender, which pose non-discursive constraints rather based on structural relationships of dependency (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999).

Hence, discourses are not only constitutive but also constituted, which means that in addition to affecting social relations, knowledge and identities, discourses are shaped by social structures and practices.

The following figure shows a continuum of the constitutive power of discourses, where the critical discourse analysis is located in the middle with its dialectical approach. This is in contrast to the strong approaches of discourse analysis (e.g.

Laclau and Mouffe's Discourse Theory) seeing discourses as constituting social reality without assuming that they can be the result of the existence of social practices that have non-discursive elements. On the extreme right hand side one can find Marxist tradition and Historical materialism that do not attach importance on discourses since they are just a 'mechanical reproduction of other social practices' (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002: 19), such as economy.

29 To be precise, whenever referring to texts, Fairclough (2003) means all textual products including interview transcripts. In my research, then, analysis on texts has a major role while analysis on interactions is more marginal.

Discourse is constitutive Dialectical relationship Discourse is constituted

Discourse theory Critical discourse analysis (Historical materialism) (Foucault)³⁰

(Capability approach)

Figure 8 The role of discourse in the constitution of the world, [Based on Jørgensen and Phillips 2002: 20]

The CA perspective on this issue is rather open since it does not take discourses into consideration. The approach does not deny either their existence or the constructionist base of social realities. In fact, Sen (2009: 272) refers to notions like dominant discourses in the field of economy when making a point about the missing links to the idea of happiness. He also mentions the dominant traditions of contemporary Western discourse and claims that communication and discourse have a high importance in the assessment of moral and political claims (Sen 2009: 392). The existence of discourses and their power in influencing people's lives has been taken into account by theorists on public policies particularly in the context of 'Third Way' policies (e.g. Bonvin and Farvaque 2004). The entanglement of these policies with discursive notions such as 'self-responsibility', 'activation' and 'engagement' have been recognized by research influenced by the CA. The connection of such terms has been made for language of human capital instead of the language of capabilities (e.g.

Andresen et al. 2010).

While the previous examples are but snapshots of the discursive language used by the CA theorists, the point made here is that the space for the discourse analysis is already visible particularly in the CA research focusing on social policies. Furthermore, the emphasis on social policy discourses would benefit from a more profound analysis on the mechanisms behind such discourses. In order to adequately understand the discursive base of political processes, the discourse analysis needs to be applied. Language in its transitivity (i.e. that it is changing and thus needs to be re-described) may not offer all the nuances required to capture the intransitivity (i.e. the unchanging qualities that can be the object of reinterpretation) of human qualities (Archer 2000) but it does provide an essential instrument through which people communicate with each other and make sense of the world. As long as the commitment to a strict discourse-determined social reality in the present study is abandoned thus leaving space for non-discursive processes, the realist standpoint of the CA does not pose a contradiction for the ontological and epistemological frame of the research.

30 As can be noted, Foucault in the Jorgensen and Phillips model has been placed at the center whereas Fairclough's critique would suggest positioning Foucalt far more left in the figure. Due to this ambiguity, the name has been put in parentheses.

Discourse analysis aims rather at reaching implicit levels of analysis with the idea that reality is socially constructed, which the CA then complements with its emphasis on the more practical, tangible aspects of reality.