Michel Foucault: The Construction Of Discourse

Based on Stuart Hall’s (2006) discussion of Foucault’s theory of discourse, a discourse is generally consisting of a group of statements that together offer a way of talking about a par-ticular knowledge on a certain topic. Many individuals can produce it together, in different institutional settings. The discourse thereby enables the construction of a topic in a specific way which at the same time limits other constructions of the same topic. A discourse is made up not only from one but a multiplicity of statements that all share the same style to talk about the same topic. However, it is not a closed off system, it draws statements from and into other discourses.

Option A – Frame of reference (Topic 2) Introduction The aim of this essay is to discuss how people’s frame of reference may influence their communication with individuals from different cultural backgrounds, with reference to personal and cultural differences in values, beliefs, attitudes and customs, and how these differences may complicate sharing of meaning and cooperation in relationships. Key concepts • Frame of Reference

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

In The Fear of Knowledge, Boghossian deduces how knowledge is defined, created, and perceived by different collective groups due to the context of time, place, and cultural perspectives. Although Boghossian is a strong supporter for attaining and conveying knowledge that is objective and universally understood by everyone, the structures of language and social situations cause the interpretation of knowledge to be much more complex. In response, Boghossian explores various theories of knowledge such as the classical picture, social dependence conception, fact constructivism, and epistemic relativism to further understand the unique human processes and reasoning of knowledge. The Classical Picture of Knowledge

One's Cultural Identity Everyone's culture differs, it is one way that distinguishes one from others. It is acquired, everyone is raised from it, and it determines the way one view the world and others. Imagine being in place with others that have different perspective of culture. Culture greatly informs the way one views the world and others.

The “assigning and prioritizing commitments” function serves to enable us to sort out, arrange, and make different commitments, allegiances, or loyalties the the things we assume, value, and do. Interpreting is described as a complex process; the function serves to help people interpret and assign meaning to life. The “integrating” function is to relate each aspect of culture to all others. Lastly, the “adapting” function discusses adapting to internal and external pressure for

On the other hand, subjectivity is the contrast of objectivity. Subjectivity means to have a judgment, bias, or prejudice towards a subject. This type of reading can mainly appeal to reader emotions. Anyway, both of these methods of writing can change

Cultures and societies around the globe vary in construct and worldview. These constructs can be interpreted by perspective. For example, the dominant perspective interdependent and independent communities which encompass views of self. Moreover, are the concepts and interworking of knowledge systems. Often when the different systems come together a culture clash is visible.

Sullivan (2002: 149) postulates that habitus is a messy concept and it is difficult to define, but generally it consists of attitudes and values wherein we can find a dominant habitus depending on the competence in a certain social

There are many standards defining and measuring a culture, some of these are obvious from one culture to another and others need some analysis before recognizing them. Two of these traits are collectivism and individualism, which differ greatly from country to country and culture to culture. In addition to defining those, the possibility of coexistence of the two traits will be examined. First, collectivism simply defined is the idea of everyone being a part of a larger group and all behavior stemming from this. More specifically, collectivism includes looking at the needs of those in your group before looking at your own, readiness to cooperate with your group, shared beliefs, and happiness based on the welfare of those around you.

Juan Gomez Quinones, historian and scholar defines culture as a “central concept” that all people share. That concept varies from the group’s behaviorism, habits and beliefs. Quinones believe that factors such as “culture, history, and nationality” are all interconnected which gives people a common ground. Quinone’s calculated language on his concept of culture invokes a sense of similarity and trivial connection between humans. Instead of describing how diverse culture separates people, Quinone’s embraces the ability of diversity to bind people to one large community.

They all have a similar life because the government controls what they do and makes decisions for them. Also, in an imperfect world, you do not feel accepted. You cannot express your feelings to anyone