Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, 7± 12, 1999
Discourse and Urban Change: Introduction to the Special Issue Annette Hastings
This Special Issue is part of the `cultural turn’ within the ® eld of urban studies, given that it highlig hts the role of discourse as a com pone nt of urban processes and change. The papers start from the assumption that our experience of the world will be shaped by the processes and practices by which we signify or represent the world. T he papers share a com mon perspective that the processes by which meanings are made, shared, negotiated or im posed are intrinsic to processes of social reproduction, contestation and change and are therefore actively involve d in shaping econom y and society. More speci® cally, the Issue focuses on the role of language use in determining meaning in the urban policy process. It foregrounds how discursive practices and language use, mediated throug h the arena of political action and policy intervention, interact with other kinds of societal processes and practices operating within the urban sphere. Perhaps, therefore, it is more accurate to describe this Issue as contributing speci® cally to the developm ent of the linguis tic rather than cultural turn within the study of urban policy. The issue collects selective papers from the conference `Discourse and Urban Change’ held at the University of Glasgow, UK in 1997. In collecting the papers, it is hoped that the relevance and value of exploring urban issues from the perspective of discourse studies can be dem onstrated. The conference was organised in the know ledge
that, whilst the study of langua ge and discourse was emerging as a research issue in the urban studies ® eld, the research was fragm ented betw een disciplines and institutions. The them es of the conference included: social constructionist accounts of urban policy processes and events; com m unication, rhetoric and argum entation in policy and the value of textually orientated discourse analysis. It is perhaps necessary to reassure som e readers who may be wary that the Special Issue collects a set of introspective, esoteric and highly relativistic accounts of urban phenom ena of the kind som etimes associated with som e post-m odern cultural urbanists (see Imrie et al., 1996, for this concern). Despite the fact that the papers focus on langua ge use in the policy process, and therefore privilege questions of meaning-making and interpretation for example, they remain focused ® rmly on substantive concerns and empirical questions such as the nature of citizenship and citizen participation, urban governance and planning, policy processes and power. T he main task of this introdu ctory paper is to explore what discourse studies might contribute to unde rstanding urban policy processes and their contribution to urban change. T o this end, it explains what is at stake in the notion of discourse and how connections betw een language use and other social phenom ena can be theorised. The core of the paper is devoted to these tasks,
A nnette Hastings is in the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow , 25 Bute Gardens, Glasgow G12 8R S, UK. F ax: 0141± 330± 4983. E -mail:
[email protected].
0042-0980/99/010007-06 $7.00
Ó
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
1999 T he E ditors of Urban Studies
8
A NN ETT E H AS TIN GS
prefaced by an account of how culturalist perspectives have im pacted on the urban studies ® eld to date. T he paper does not attempt to sum marise the papers within the volum e, or to deal with the criticisms which are often made of the turn to discourse in som e ® elds of social research. The concluding paper in the volum e by Keith Jacobs deals with both of these issues, as well as identifying gaps in the coverage of the ® eld in the Issue, and questions for future research. Urban Studies and the Lingu istic Turn There has been growing interest in the role of discourse in social processes in many disciplines and ® elds of social research such as sociology and media studies. Imrie et al. (1996) note the signi® cant im pact of cultural studies generally on the urban ® eld, whilst arguing that structuralist rather than culturalist perspectives have largely retained their prom inence. Arguably, however, cultural urbanism has largely focused on non-lin guistic aspects of culture and has yet to engage with the centrality of langua ge to social phenom ena. The reasons for why this should be may relate in part to the con® guration of disciplinary perspectives used to investigate urban questions. Van Dijk (1997) , for exam ple, charts how the linguis tic turn has diffused different disciplines at different rates, to varying degrees and with distinctive kinds of emphases. Interestingly, he highlig hts political scienceÐ a discipline which has made a signi® cant contribu tion to the urban ® eld throug h its analysis of power, inequality and urban gove rnanceÐ as a discipline which has remained largely untouc hed by questions about the role of language. However, hum an geography has been a key discipline in urban research and one in which cultural studies have made a signi® cant im pact, spawning the sub-discipline of cultural geography. Cultural geographers have engaged with questions of meaning and interpretation within cities since the early 1980s. One tradition has explored how spatial phenom ena are represented in literature and has used novels and poem s as a source of
geographical data (Crang, 1998). Another, perhaps more substantial, tradition has focused on the im plications of sym bolic systems other than language, focusing on the semiology of spatial practices within cities, rather than on the role of linguistic practices. Thus, a key area of interest has been the iconogr aphy of city landscapesÐ including the built form of cities and the con® guration of space within themÐ and how these embody pow er relations (Crang, 1998). The con® guration of cityscapes has been viewed as a system of signi® cation or as a series of texts im plicated in social and political practices and relations (Duncan, 1990). Thus, cities have been examined for the ways in which their spaces act sym bolically (as well as materially) to include or exclude the disadvantaged (Robins, 1995; Badcock, 1996) and for the ways in which the organisation of space can contribute to the construction of different kinds of identities and form s of behaviour (Keith and Pile, 1993; Crang, 1998). How ever, there have been signi® cant critiques of the im pact of cultural geography on urban studie s, and there may be a danger that som e of these criticisms could challenge the developm ent of the linguist ic turn within the ® eld. For example, Badcock (1996) highlights Sayer’ s (1994) concern that culturalist perspectives have diverted attention from the consideration of how capital and class still structure power relations, as well as the concern of Sayer and others that real people with real problems, have been sidelined by cultural geography. For Badcock, urban studies under the cultural turn has recently shifted towards understanding the city as a space of performance, theatre and spectacle rather than as a site of inequality and struggle. Many of these criticisms were reiterated by Imrie et al. (1996) in a recent article in this journal, in which they argued for the `reactivation’ within urban studies of Marxist-inspired accounts of political econom y to counter the dangers presented by discursive accounts both of power, and of the privileged role accorded to agency. Thus, they suggest that, within the cultural turn
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
INT RODU CT ION T O SPECIA L ISSU E
questions of class and other bases of inequalities in pow er within patriarchal, capitalist ¼ systems are displaced, in favour of accounts of discursive practices and con¯ icts within the existing distribu tion of pow er (Chouinar d, 1994; quoted in Imrie et al., 1996, p. 1259). As already stated, this Issue highlig hts both the centrality of language to urban processes and the signi® cance of discourse studies to urban research. In so doing, it may help to begin to challenge argum ents which dow nplay the im portance of culturalist perspectives for urban studie s. Drawing on a broad corpus of social and linguistic theory which propos es that language use is linked to social and cultural processes including social change (Fairclough, 1992), the papers illustrate how the linguis tic turn presents a cogent avenue of research. Interestingly, the papers also build on the observation that language and linguis tic practices have becom e increasingly im portant aspects of social practice in late modern society (Fairclough, 1992; Mills, 1997). For example, the progre ssive com modi® cation of public services is a process largely achieved throug h attention to how language is used, so that education, for instance, is increasingly a com modity to be sold to `consumers’ (Fairclough, 1992). The papers deploy discourse analysis in various ways to address substantive empirical questions in the urban ® eld. The volum e is therefore testimony to the fact that employing discourse analysis in social research does not inevitably lead to a research focus abstracted from real world concerns. Rather, the papers show how discourse analysis provid es a robust framework and practical method for conducting research in urban policy which often starts with a desire to account for and challenge social inequality. The remainder of the paper explains som ething of what is at stake in the notion of discourse. It highlig hts different dim ensions to discourse and aspects of the theoretical basis of the linguistic turn. It also outlines tw o opposing claims of how discourse prac-
9
tices are conceived to interact with other kinds of social processes. Discourse, P ow er and Societal Change Discourse studies or discourse analysis has roots in both social theory and linguistics. Discourse is a com plex notion with a wide range of meanings. Despite its com plexity, it is a term which is often used rather casually by social scientists who do not usually acknow ledge its multiple meanings and the im plications of these, or habitually identify how they are using the term. Indeed, it is rather ironic that social scientists should im plicitly present discourse as an uncontested term, given that the concept of discourse problem atises the idea of straightforw ard meaning (Mills, 1997). T here is insuf® cient space to deal fully with how discourse is understood within discourse analysis, but som e key dim ensions to the term need to be highlig hted. (For useful reviews, see Mills, 1997 and van Dijk, 1997). First, `discourse’ is often used simply to refer to a single instance or event of language use, usually spoken rather than written language (Mills, 1997)Ð for exam ple, to a politician’ s speech or to an interchange betw een an employer and employee. Discourse analysis is interested in precisely how language is being used within this discursive event, such as why particular vocabulary or rhetorical strategies are deployed, how these are interpreted, and what is accom plished through these strategies. It also seeks to situate the instance of language use within a social setting or context and to understand how the discourse event interacted with that contextÐ for example, how it legitim ated or perhaps challenged an unequal power relation between the participants (van Dijk, 1997). A second way in which discourse is used is to refer to groups of utterances or texts which appear to originate or belong in the same social dom ain, such as within the class room or court room , or within advertising or the academy (Mills, 1997). Here discourse analysis might be interested to explore the conventions and patterns of language use
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
10
A NN ETT E H AS TIN GS
within these settings and how these conventions position the participants in the discourse in relation to one another, how the use of language might legitim ate power inequalities, or how it may contribute to developing norm s of behaviour (Fairclough, 1992; Mills, 1997). The description thus far of potential foci for discourse analysis im plies that discourse may be involve d in maintaining or transform ing power relations, and that discourse analysis may provide ways in which to explore questions of pow er. The notion of discourse is intim ately connected to conceptions of pow er, and it is necessary to turn to social and linguis tic theory to explain why this may be the case. Post-structuralism, and Foucault’ s corpus in particular, are central to unde rstanding what is at stake in the notion of discourse, particularly in terms of how language practices are thought to interact with other social practices. The key post-structuralist insight is that langua ge constitutes or produces the concepts and categories we use to make sense of the world. This insight builds on the work of the linguis tic theorist, Ferdinand de Saussure, who argued that linguistic signi® ers have only an arbitrary connection to material objects (Burr, 1995). This account of the productive role of language problematises the com mon sense view that language is simply a transparent medium for representing pre-existing concepts and objects. Further, for Foucault in particular, the productive properties of language are not lim ited to the constitution of `know ledge’ but extend to other dim ensions of social life, including social relations, identities and subject positio ns (Fairclough, 1992). Crucially, Foucault propos ed that discourses produce social know ledge and practice through their connection to power, im plying a critical interdependence betw een the meanings which individ uals are able to make and the social, historical and political positio ns they occupy (Lemke, 1995). On this basis, discourses can be thought of as socially ground ed interpretative frameworks ¼ (which act) as powerful form s of
know ledge which structure what can be though t, said and done by social actors (Meinhof and Richardson, 1994, p. 22). Foucault makes som e im portant, if controversial, claim s for a relationship between discourse and power, two of which need to be highlig hted. The ® rst is that power is prior to language. This is the view of the relationship form ulated in his later genealogical studies (particularly Discipline and Punish, 1977). W ithin this form ulation, language practices can be seen to be motivated by pow er or, simply, language can be viewed as a re¯ ection of power (Fairclough, 1992; McHoul and Grace, 1993; Burr, 1995). The second is that language use is the central way in which pow er relations are realised (McHoul and Grace, 1993), suggesting that it is not simply that discourse serves pow er in the sense that language use is motiva ted by pow er, but that discourse serves power in that it concretises or makes power real. These two claims are at the basis of the Foucaultian conception of how discourse is linked to society, conceiving of language as re¯ ective of power and as the main way in which pow er is exercised. The claims involved in this conception are controversial, how ever. It is instructive to contrast them with how Fairclough conceives of the relationship between discourse and pow er, particularly since Fairclough’ s critical discourse analysis (especially 1992, 1995; Fairclough and W odak, 1997) frames the approach of many (although no means all) of the authors in this volum e. Critical discourse analysis posits a recursive rather than uni-dir ectional relationship between language and power. Based on the view that writing and speaking are form s of social practice, and that therefore that discursive events are not only shaped by, but also shape, the social processes and relationships which frame them , Fairclough and W odak argue for a dialectical relationship between langua ge and power: the discursive event is shaped by situations, institutions and social structures, but it also shapes them . ¼ discourse is so-
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
INT RODU CT ION T O SPECIA L ISSU E
cially constitutive as well as socially shaped: it constitutes situations, objects of know ledge, and the social identities of and relationships betw een people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transform ing it (Fairclough and W odak, 1997, p. 258). In Discourse and Social Change (1992) , Fairclough uses the notion of a dialectical relationship between social practice and discursive practice as a way of theorising the potential connections between langua ge use and social and political change. His argum ent is that social and political changes do not simply involve or create changes in language use, but that changes at the social and political level can also be constituted in part throug h changes in linguistic practices. The account also allow s for the in¯ uence of human agency, given its basis in structuration theory (Giddens, 1984). T hus, it is argued, the incum bents of political power can orchestrate political and social change throug h directing linguis tic change. For Fairclough, discursive events or texts deserve attention in social analysis because they are concrete instances of social action, provid ing evidence about social structures and social change, and because they may also be used as mechanism s for social control. Thus, in this account of the connections betw een language and power, discursive and linguist ic practices are view ed as instantiations of power, but discourse is not reduced to pow er, nor power to discourse. Clearly, the exposition offered in this paper of the meaning of discourse and its im plications for social processes, has merely scratched the surface of a com plex and dif® cult literature. The paper has not attempted even to begin to cover the range of writing relevant to theories of langua ge and society, but has simply sought to highligh t a key area of debate between two of the writers whose work inform s many of the papers in the Issue. The individ ual papers provide much more detail about the theoretical basis
11
of their various approaches and, in the process, identify further reading for the interested reader. Finally, it should be noted that the papers examine discourse strategies and language use in urban policy processes and practices with different emphases and for different purposes. In terms of their emphases, many of the papers exam ine linguist ic strategies and practices within particular discursive events including policy and media documents, interviews and, in one case, a video designed to achieve a particular policy intervention . Others have a broader focus on how langua ge is involve d in producing systems of meaning and particular outcom es within a speci® c policy ® eld. In terms of their purposes for using discourse analysis, for most authors this is to understand better how language is deploy ed and manipulated in the policy process and to what effect. Thus, language use is examined to help to identify what kind of know ledge about policy problems and solution s is produced in the policy process and to highlig ht the conting ency of this know ledge; to identify gaps betw een the rhetoric and practice of policy; and to explore how linguis tic practice and, crucially, linguistic change are key com ponents of policy change. How ever, for a small num ber of authors, examining language has a different kind of purpose. Here the aim is to examine linguistic practices and change in order to uncover other processes underw ay, particularly changes in social relations. Thus language, and particularly language change, is viewed as an index of other kinds of social change, and language analysis as a way of analysing these phenom ena. Both rationales for discourse analysis sugge st the value of foregroundin g language within urban research, and for taking the linguis tic turn seriously within urban studies. References B ADC OCK , B. (1996) `L ooking- glass’ view s of the city, Progress in Human Geography , 20, pp. 91±99. B URR , V. (1995) A n Introdu ction to Social Construction ism . London: Routledge .
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
12
A NN ETT E H AS TIN GS
C RA NG , M. (1998) Cultural Geograph y. L ondon: Routled ge. D IJK , T. V AN (1997) The study of discourse , in T . VAN D IJK (E d.) D iscourse as Social Interacti on, pp. 1±34. L ondon: Sage. D UNCA N , J. (1990) T he City as Text: The Politics of Landscap e Interpret ation in the Kandyan Kingdom . Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press. F A IRC LOU GH , N . (1992) Discourse and Social Change . Cam bridge: P olity Press. F A IRC LOU GH , N. (1995) Critical Discourse A nalysis: The Critical Study of Language . L ondon: Longm an. F A IRC LOU GH , N . and W OD AK , R. (1997) Critical discourse analysis, in: T. VA N D IJK (Ed.) Discourse as Structure and P rocess , pp. 258±284. London: Sage. G IDDE NS , A. (1984) The Constituti on of Society. Cam bridge: P olity Press. I M RIE , R., P INC H , S. and B OYL E , M. (1996) Identi-
ties, citizensh ip and pow er in the cities, Urban Studies , 33, pp. 1255±1262. K E ITH , M. and P ILE , S. (Eds) (1993) Place and the P olitics of Identity . L ondon: Routledge . L E M KE , J. (1995) Textual P olitics: Discourse and Social Dynam ics. L ondon: Taylor and Francis. M C H OU L , A. and G R ACE W . (1993) A F oucault P rimer: D iscourse, P ow er and the Subject . L ondon: U CL Press. M E INHO F , U . and R ICH ARDS ON , K . (E ds) (1994) Text, Discourse and Context: Representa tions of P overty in B ritain . L ondon: L ongm an. M IL LS , S. (1997) Discourse . L ondon: Routledge . R OBIN S , K. (1995) Collective em otion and urban culture, in: P. H E ALE Y , S. C AM ER ON , S. D AVOU DI E T AL . (Eds) M anaging Cities: T he New U rban Context, pp. 45±62. Chichester : John W iley. S AYE R , A. (1994) Cultural Studies and `the econom y stupid’ , E nvironm ent and P lanning D, 12, pp. 635±637.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on August 27, 2015
