Peter Crooks. Bestselling Series. Harry Potter.
Popular Features. New Releases. Free delivery worldwide. Description In this accessible new textbook, Isabela and Norman Fairclough present their innovative approach to analysing political discourse. Political Discourse Analysis integrates analysis of arguments into critical discourse analysis and political discourse analysis.
The book is grounded in a view of politics in which deliberation, decision and action are crucial concepts: politics is about arriving cooperatively at decisions about what to do in the context of disagreement, conflict of interests and values, power inequalities, uncertainty and risk. The first half of the book introduces the authors' new approach to the analysis and evaluation of practical arguments, while the second half explores how it can be applied by looking at examples such as government reports, parliamentary debates, political speeches and online discussion forums on political issues.
Through the analysis of current events, including a particular focus on the economic crisis and political responses to it, the authors provide a systematic and rigorous analytical framework that can be adopted and used for students' own research.
This exciting new text, co-written by bestselling author Norman Fairclough, is essential reading for researchers, upper undergraduate and postgraduate students of discourse analysis, within English language, linguistics, communication studies, politics and other social sciences. Product details Format Paperback pages Dimensions x x People who bought this also bought. Critical Discourse Analysis Norman Fairclough. Add to basket. Becoming Michelle Obama. A Warning Anonymous. Triggered Jr Donald Trump. Communist Manifesto Karl Marx. The Party Richard McGregor. Tailspin Steven Brill. Age of Ambition Evan Osnos.
The Patient Assassin Anita Anand. This is Not Propaganda Peter Pomerantsev. Democracy and Its Crisis A. Stealth War Robert Spalding. Blowout Rachel Maddow. Burned Sam McBride. New Dark Age James Bridle. Dictatorland Paul Kenyon. A People's Tragedy Orlando Figes. Gender and the European Union Johanna Kantola.
Sexual Ethics, Human Nature, and New Natural Law Theory
Identity Francis Fukuyama. We Learn Nothing Tim Kreider. From Dictatorship to Democracy Gene Sharp. Che Guevara Jon Lee Anderson. Political Fictions Joan Didion. High Crimes and Misdemeanors Frank O. Whether he succeeds in this endeavor is a hotly debated topic.
Moral norms cannot pick up the slack to achieve social integration and cohesion by themselves. And, as Habermas noted in Theory of Communicative Action , while systems like the bureaucratic state and economy can achieve stability and coordinate expectations through money and power, this can erode mutual understandings and social solidarity; markets and bureaucracies tend to displace and colonize the lifeworld.
Indeed, his political essays from this period cast democratically created law as holding the line against system encroachments in a siege mentality BFN , Habermas b This may leave us asking: What other resources exist for legitimate social integration? If law is linked to democratic political structures in the right way it confers legitimacy on legal norms, thereby fostering social integration and stability.
Broadly speaking, the relation between legal legitimacy, procedural-democratic popular sovereignty, and public discourse is nested and reflexive: legitimate law must be rooted in democracy, which itself depends upon a robust public sphere. A vibrant democratic public sphere is what allows for the revision and questioning of prior law.
As long as legal decisions are arrived at in the right type of procedural, discursive fashion there is a presumption in favor of their rationality and legitimacy. And, as long as the public sphere continues to be a robust and open forum of contestation, any prior decisions are revisable such that there is a circulation between the informal public sphere and more formal institutions of the state.
While the prior model saw democratically generated law as a defensive dam or shield against the demands of systems, the new model sees a certain type of lawmaking as mediating the circulation between lifeworld and system in a way that produces legitimate and binding legal norms. Modern law works with systems and alongside post-conventional morality to stabilize social expectations and resolve conflicts.
We can start to understand the relation between law, democracy, and the public sphere by focusing on legal legitimacy and democracy. Between Facts and Norms posits a tension within law itself, as well as an internal relation between modern law and democracy. To function, all law must demand compliance, threaten coercion, and however tacitly appeal to an underlying normative justification.
This tension helps explain the relation between law and democracy in contemporary contexts. Pre-modern law appealed to God, nature, human reason, or shared culture for its justificatory backing.
Political discourse analysis. a method for advanced students
In post-conventional societies the fact that law is coercible and changeable yet merely rooted in fallible humans is laid bare. The thought is that democracy is the only mode of lawmaking that is up to this legitimacy-engendering task. The democracy Habermas has in mind differs from overly populist varieties. This non-subordinate concordance of legality and discourse theoretic morality is the hardest sense of legitimacy to explain and the easiest to overlook, so it is fruitful to start there.
Yet it seems puzzling to hold that democratically determined law should be compatible with but not subordinate to discourse-theoretic morality. What about cases where law and morality seem to conflict?
At a general level these answers take the same shape: while there are many ways that legal systems can square with moral permissibility, there are nevertheless structural and conceptual features endogenous to processes of modern procedural-democratic popular sovereignty that, at least at an abstract level, tend to harmonize legal norms with moral permissibility. This avoids concerns with morality trumping legality in an exogenous manner. One reason to expect that democratically legitimate law and moral permissibility will be at least in principle commensurable is that they are both rooted in D.
We saw above how the moral principle U expresses the way D is specified for moral discourses. Habermas also proposes a principle of democratic legitimacy L that expresses the way D is specified for political discourses producing law. Modern positive law is enacted and conventional, enforceable and coercive, rooted in institutions with some reflexivity, tailored to protect individuals through rights, and limited in scope BFN , IO If law is to function as a tool for the consensual regulation of social conflicts and the integration of society, then it needs to take on this form.
The principle of democratic legitimacy L is part of the normative backing that is supposed to emerge, albeit in nuce and very abstractly, from the historical interpenetration of D and the legal form that has culminated in the structures of modern democratic state.
This principle captures how D is specified for political discourses so that democratic procedures underwrite the legitimacy of legal norms. Legitimacy does not arise out of formal legality alone; it needs the added normative backing of democracy. To achieve this, political discourses must be structured in a way where formal legislative institutions accurately represent and address deliberations going on in the informal public sphere, and where there are institutionalized procedural mechanisms organized in a way to help screen out weak arguments BFN The details of this structuring will be clarified below, particularly in relation to the process model and the relationship between democracy and the public sphere.
However, the mere fact that U and L are rooted in D does little to ensure the commensurability of law and discourse-theoretic morality. Fortunately, there are additional reasons why we might expect such a harmonization.