Stuart Hall forwarded in his new model of communication that the production and circulation of meaning do not solely reside at any particular moment of the circuit model. Instead, he mentioned that the model (which he proposed as an alternative to the traditional model that works in a linear fashion) comprises of what he called “moments”. Hall used the term “moment” to refer to the circulation and distribution of meaning. These “moments” in the model include: “moment” of encoding, “moment” of the text, and “moment” of decoding. These “moments” in the communication model show that the production of meaning happens all throughout and is governed by the following principles: over determination and relative autonomy.
Social Construction Social constructs or community constructions divide repercussions, ideas, or proposals that are allocated to protests and occasions in the nature 's domain and to individuals ' admitted intelligence of their connections to and associations with these items. Social construction can likewise illuminate as a social machine, wonder, or classification made and created by society or a view of a different, gathering, or thought that is "developed" through social or social practice. In the area of social constructionist thought, a social construct is a thought or idea that seems, by all accounts, to be common and clear to individuals who acknowledge it yet could conceivably speak to reality, so it remains generally an innovation
Through this study we have acquired new terms like “society, norm, role, status, collective belief” and the like (p.21). Tilly explains that the term society was created by sociologists to justify their work. He believes there is no such thing as distinct societies and the concept was human-made. I understand what Tilly means here. Naming is power.
Foucault’s conception of power is a wide analysis. He moves away from notions which is set to power in a more binary way of domination and force. Power can be as a set of relationships existing everywhere in all sides of our lives from a more small level or to a larger level. Foucault’s analysis suggests that power is the omnipresent and can be found in all social interactions. First, let’s start off by understanding one of his notions.
He also states that we often mistake ideas for our own because of conformity. We as people like to be in the majority, but often times the ideas we believe to be our own are often influenced by other people. Is this freedom or are we creating a false sense of freedom by our interpretation? Conclusion Justice by Michael Sandel presents many different views on what morality is and how different group perceives it. I enjoyed the first half of this book and found it fascinating how different groups determine what is moral or not.
"..Anthropologists use the word “belief" with great assurance, but do not actually know what people mean when they say they believe in something." (Magliocco 8). Magliocco points out the fact that many anthropologists use the word "belief" as a declaration in giving their conclusions without knowing the actual reason behind the formation of the "belief". Two very interesting concepts; romanticism and rationalism have been spoken about by Mary Hufford. Romanticism fears modernization where as rationalism loves it and craves for it.
I also agree with how Taylor states that not everything can be considered significant. I feel that too often we let each individual claim things as important or significant just for empty conversation rather than actually backing up their reasoning behind the idea. I believe that for something to be significant it has to hold intelligent meaning. When I say intelligent meaning, I am saying that a
“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth. Of course people have different values, morals, opinions, views, etc.
All the cited scholars have had different definitions and application of critical discourse analysis. However Van Dijk, Wodak and Fairclough have similar and correlating definitions and applications for critical discourse analysis of texts, the similarities are in that critical discourse analysis examines the context of the discourse, syntactic and lexical structures of text amongst other features. Wodak and Fairclough cited in Van Dijk (1997: 258) define critical discourse analysis as discourse analysis that, “analyses real and often extended instances of social interaction which take a linguistic form, or a partially linguistic form. The critical approach is distinctive in its view of (a) the relationship between language and society, and (b) the relationship between analysis and the practices analysed.” This study will apply the critical approach as explained by Wodak and Fairclough to locate the language used in the articles and the relationship between the language and Zille and De
According to Ellis (2003), this classification is more centered around and allows for the theories of rhetoric that are influential in differentiating different discourse categories in terms of their structure and linguistic properties including narrative, instructions, description, reports, etc. These features often employ a linguistic (often functional) syllabus and appear to entail tasks creating chances and capacity for the free production of language that has been previously presented and practiced. As Ellis (2003) revealed, tasks of this category foster ‘task-supported’ teaching. Further, Ellis highlighted that influencing both the negotiation of meaning and the quality of learner production is one merit of applying a rhetorical classification,
The complex Identity: Who Am I? reminded me that we are all socialized differently and have different experiences. This concept is easy to grasp but often gets lost in my social justice work and activism. I often refer to myself a progressive. Technically, this implies that people whose beliefs contradict mine are not “progressive.” When I consider the intersection of the looking glass self and socialization, I realize that this is not necessarily true.