Critical discourse analysis: critiques of the approach

For key information relating to this material, including copyright details and how to reference this work, visit the introductory page Critical discourse analysis

Maley (1994) has criticised the work of the Critical Discourse Analysts on the basis that their work is centred on a struggle against hegemony (that is, the structures and practices by which social groups accept their own repression consensually, as opposed to through coercion, through a process of ‘naturalisation’). The notion of hegemony was developed from Gramsci’s (1971) work. Maley argues that there is a logical problem inherent in challenging any argument based on a notion of hegemony, as to do so opens oneself to charges of being a victim of ‘false consciousness’. Also, whilst Gramsci did not intend hegemony to imply the existence of a single dominant ideology, this is how it has been interpreted by some neo-Marxists (e.g. Althusser 1971), and therefore fails to account for the multiple identities and relations within society. Similarly, this approach fails to recognise the dynamic, adaptable nature of the powerful (for example, capitalism today does not comprise the industrial mill owners depicted by Marx and Engels but is more easily recognisable as the globalised ‘turbo-capitalism’).

Critical approaches can sometimes be interpreted as ‘anti-teacher’ in their portrayal of agents of hegemony. This view, however, is premised on a conception of teachers as an homogeneous group, a position widely refuted in the research literature. Attempts to understand teachers’ actions and perspectives as they are created and modified through multiple interactions in complex organisational contexts is not a ‘blanket condemnation of teachers as a group’ (Gillborn 1998:42), but an attempt to address the problem of where educational practices and policies reinforce hegemonic relations. An apolitical stance can result in no action being taken, which in turn might reproduce assumptions which shape existing inequalities.

In the English Language Teaching (ELT) context, Widdowson (1995) has offered some of the most damning critiques of such a position, including the claim that the arguments of Critical Discourse Analysts are often reductive, as their arguments are themselves partial. He claims that Critical Discourse Analysts rarely acknowledge that texts can be interpreted in different ways by different audiences, and that they regularly imply that a ‘single interpretation is uniquely validated by the textual facts’ (1995: 169). The committed critical discourse analyst may interpret a text in keeping with their own ideological standpoint and, as such, could be charged with producing an intellectual and interpretive hegemony as oppressive as the one critical discourse analysts seek to challenge. Such a commitment to a particular preferred reading of a text denies the essential understanding that texts do not contain meaning, but that meanings are pragmatically interpreted from texts. Fish (1981) has warned of the dangers of such ‘interpretive positivism’, whereby linguistic data is used as a way of confirming decisions and interpretation already arrived at concerning the meaning of a text.

Fairclough (1996) counter-argues that such a position is somewhat naïve in assuming that individuals are free to interpret neutrally and, in doing so, denies the social construction of interpretation, implies the neutrality of the social context and the participants, and effectively positions them outside the construction of the discourse. Whilst these positions both merit consideration, the key concern is not that texts are interpreted in one particular ideological manner, but that the purposes and intentions of texts are themselves questioned. It is the critical questioning of texts and discourses, rather that the arrival at a pre-determined ideological interpretation, that is central here and requires consideration of notions of positionality and the complex relationship between analysis and interpretation.

A final criticism levelled at critical approaches to textual analysis is that they are generally, and explicitly, partial and political. Critiques are always levelled against the powerful groups in society, particularly from a left-of-centre perspective. We see critiques of the discourse of Thatcherism (Fairclough 1989), the reporting of the nuclear arms race (Chilton 1985) and the discourse of racism (Van Dijk 1991). This raises the need for the analyst to locate their work within an understanding of notions of reflectivity and reflexivity, whereby the author does not only subject their understandings to (self) critical scrutiny but is also aware that their previous experiences will affect the way they interpret the present.

Indeed CDA advocates are not embarrassed by charges of partiality – they revel in it!

As Wodak and Meyer note:
“…critical discourse analysis research combines what perhaps somewhat pompously used to be called ‘solidarity with the oppressed’ with an attitude of opposition and dissent against those who abuse text and talk in order to establish, confirm or legitimate their abuse of power. Unlike much other scholarship, CDA does not deny but explicitly defines and defends its own socio-political position, That is CDA is biased – and proud of it.” (2001:96)

Return to introductory page Critical discourse analysis