An Analysis Of Fairclough's Theory Of Discrimination

926 Words2 Pages

In Section 2.4.1, it is explicated that Fairclough sees ideologies as embodying resources for meaning-making. More specifically, to Fairclough (1992) ideology “is a construction of reality which contributes to the production, reproduction or transformation of relations of domination” (Fairclough 1992:87). According to Fairclough (1995:14), “to show that meanings are working ideologically it is necessary to show that they do indeed serve relations of domination in particular cases.” Therefore, in the production of discriminatory language, relations of domination are obvious and this is a matter of a primary concern to Fairclough who also claims that ideologies are reflected in language through “propositions that generally figure as implicit …show more content…

In the socio-cognitive model suggested by van Dijk (1998) an attempt is made to explain the connection between ideologies, which sometimes manifest in ‘language of hate’, such as racist language, stereotypes and prejudices. van Dijk, in his explanation of racism draws on the theory of mental models of (Johnson-Laird 1980) and this allows him to link cognition, language (discourse) and social behavior (social practices). His work focuses on mental schemas, which convey ideologies through stereotypes, opinions and attitudes. Although his theory is grounded in the neo-Marxist conception of domination, van Dijk does not agree with the idea that social classes are the dominating or oppressed political actors; he instead concentrates on the ideologies as “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group” (van Dijk 1998:8). He opines in his framework, that ideologies organise attitudes, i.e. complex structures of opinions. Eventually, these opinions and attitudes form a basis of knowledge: “Knowledge according to van Dijk[…] is a specific sociocultural form of beliefs, viz. those that are held to be true by a speaker or a community, because they can be justified by sociocultural criteria of truth”. van Dijk tries to distinguishing between positive and negative ideologies, and …show more content…

This is akin to the stand of the cognitive linguist George Lakoff, who adopted a cognitive framework to study ideologies through the study of metaphors. Lakoff opines that “ideology is a conceptual system of a particular kind” (Lakoff 1996:36). Another scholar in the cognitive tradition, who is interested in how metaphors serve as vehicles for ideology, is Charteris–Black. Exploring the role of social groups in the construction of ideologies, Charteris-Black (2004) links meaning which constitutes the essence of ideologies to the aims of the formation of group identities and a specific discursive strategy of self-legitimization. In light of this, he sees ideology: as a set of meanings through which a particular group is able to form and sustain itself; it therefore serves to create group identity by establishing and reinforcing shared meanings within the group and by communicating this group identity to others as an act of self-legitimization (Charteris-Black

Open Document