Changes

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]

[[Image:Time.jpg|right]]

[[Image:Time.jpg|right|frame]]

'''Discourse''' is communication that goes back and forth (from the Latin, ''discursus'', "running to and fro"), such as debate or argument.  The term is used in [[semantics]] and [[discourse analysis]].  In [[semantics]], discourses are linguistic units composed of several sentences — in other words, [[conversation]]s, [[Logical argument|arguments]] or [[Speech (public address)|speeches]].   

'''Discourse''' is communication that goes back and forth (from the Latin, ''discursus'', "running to and fro"), such as debate or argument.  The term is used in [[semantics]] and [[discourse analysis]].  In [[semantics]], discourses are linguistic units composed of several sentences — in other words, [[conversation]]s, [[Logical argument|arguments]] or [[Speech (public address)|speeches]].   

===The social conception of discourse===

===The social conception of discourse===

In the [[social sciences]], a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as [[Judith Butler]] puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech" - or possible [[truth]]. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. ''Discourse'' is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself. According to [[Michel Foucault]]'s definition, ''discourse'' must be heard rather as synonym of his concept of ''[[episteme]]'', notwithstanding important theoretical displacements (''episteme'' was first thought of as the condition of possibility of discourses). In other words, Foucault's ''discourse'' must both be understood as a singular discourse, as defined above, and as a more general ''discourse'', meaning the boundaries given to any particular discourse. In this more general sense, ''discourse'' is not composed only of words, which would be to limit oneself to a [[dualist]] conception: as he demonstrated in ''[[Discipline and Punish]]'', discourse is also composed of architectural ''dispositifs'', such as [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s ''[[panopticon]]'' or the map of a classroom, etc. A ''dispositif'' is "a resolutely heterogeneous assemblage, containing discourses, institutions, architectural buildings [''aménagements architecturaux''], reglementary decisions, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, philanthropic propositions, in one word: said as well as non-said [''du dit aussi bien que du non-dit''], those are the ''dispositif'''s elements. The ''dispositif'' in itself is the network that we can establish between those elements."

In the [[social sciences]], a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as [[Judith Butler]] puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech" - or possible [[truth]]. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla [[movement]]s describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. ''Discourse'' is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself. According to [[Michel Foucault]]'s definition, ''discourse'' must be heard rather as synonym of his concept of ''[[episteme]]'', notwithstanding important theoretical displacements (''episteme'' was first thought of as the condition of possibility of discourses). In other words, Foucault's ''discourse'' must both be understood as a singular discourse, as defined above, and as a more general ''discourse'', meaning the boundaries given to any particular discourse. In this more general sense, ''discourse'' is not composed only of [[words]], which would be to limit oneself to a [[dualist]] conception: as he demonstrated in ''[[Discipline and Punish]]'', discourse is also composed of architectural ''dispositifs'', such as [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s ''[[panopticon]]'' or the map of a classroom, etc. A ''dispositif'' is "a resolutely heterogeneous assemblage, containing discourses, institutions, architectural buildings [''aménagements architecturaux''], reglementary decisions, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, philanthropic propositions, in one word: said as well as non-said [''du dit aussi bien que du non-dit''], those are the ''dispositif'''s elements. The ''dispositif'' in itself is the network that we can establish between those elements."

According to Foucault, discourse can't be reduced to an [[ideology|ideological]] reflexion, it is to be thought as itself a ''Kampfplatz'' or battlefield. Against [[Kant]]'s conception, Foucault argues that truth is not the objective bounty that the winners can take; truth is not an [[absolute truth|absolute]], it is on the contrary produced in this battle with strategic aims. This conception of truth may be related to [[Althusser]]'s theory on the "epistemological break" between science and ideology (the "epistemological break" is not an event, but a process; "science" always has to fight for its truth against ideology, which keeps coming back). Since knowledge and power are intrinsically related, according to Foucault, he can thus say that power relations are [[immanent]] to discourses, whereas in the classic [[marxist]] conception, the discourse is conceived as the ideological [[superstructure]] - which, of course, interacts with the base, as Marx wrote, but this does not impede the power relations being essentially located in the economic base, afterward reflected in the superstructure. Furthermore, as he showed in ''Society Must Be Defended'' (1976-77), discourse is not anyone's property and thus has no [[essentialist]] meaning. The same discourse may change political sides quite often, being reappropriated and endlessly modified, as did Foucault show in his [[Philosophy of history#Michel Foucault's analysis of historical and political discourse|analysis of the historical and political discourse]]; there is a "polymorphic tactics" of discourses. In other words, specific discourses are not tied to the [[subject (philosophy)|subject]]; rather, the subject is a [[social construction]] of the discourse, or, as [[Nietzsche]] said, a "grammatical fiction". Judith Butler would maintain this ambivalency of discourse, which can be ''[[Performativity|performed]]'' in various contexts by different subjectivities. In psychology critical perspectives on discourse have been developed in relation to developmental psychology by [[Erica Burman]] and in relation to social theory and psychoanalysis by [[Ian Parker (psychologist)]], and a critical research group, the [[Discourse Unit]], was founded by these two. This perspective has also then had an influential bearing on [[critical psychology]].

According to Foucault, discourse can't be reduced to an [[ideology|ideological]] reflexion, it is to be thought as itself a ''Kampfplatz'' or battlefield. Against [[Kant]]'s conception, Foucault argues that truth is not the objective bounty that the winners can take; truth is not an [[absolute truth|absolute]], it is on the contrary produced in this battle with strategic aims. This conception of truth may be related to [[Althusser]]'s theory on the "epistemological break" between science and ideology (the "epistemological break" is not an event, but a process; "science" always has to fight for its truth against ideology, which keeps coming back). Since knowledge and power are intrinsically related, according to Foucault, he can thus say that power relations are [[immanent]] to discourses, whereas in the classic [[marxist]] conception, the discourse is conceived as the ideological [[superstructure]] - which, of course, interacts with the base, as Marx wrote, but this does not impede the power relations being essentially located in the economic base, afterward reflected in the superstructure. Furthermore, as he showed in ''Society Must Be Defended'' (1976-77), discourse is not anyone's property and thus has no [[essentialist]] meaning. The same discourse may change political sides quite often, being reappropriated and endlessly modified, as did Foucault show in his [[Philosophy of history#Michel Foucault's analysis of historical and political discourse|analysis of the historical and political discourse]]; there is a "polymorphic tactics" of discourses. In other words, specific discourses are not tied to the [[subject (philosophy)|subject]]; rather, the subject is a [[social construction]] of the discourse, or, as [[Nietzsche]] said, a "grammatical fiction". Judith Butler would maintain this ambivalency of discourse, which can be ''[[Performativity|performed]]'' in various contexts by different subjectivities. In psychology critical perspectives on discourse have been developed in relation to developmental psychology by [[Erica Burman]] and in relation to social theory and psychoanalysis by [[Ian Parker (psychologist)]], and a critical research group, the [[Discourse Unit]], was founded by these two. This perspective has also then had an influential bearing on [[critical psychology]].

* [[Discourse Community]]

* [[Discourse Community]]

* [http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/55 Beyond Open Access: Open Discourse, the next great equalizer], ''Retrovirology'' 2006, 3:55

* [https://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/55 Beyond Open Access: Open Discourse, the next great equalizer], ''Retrovirology'' 2006, 3:55

==Brill Dictionary of Religion==

==Brill Dictionary of Religion==

Citation:

Citation:

Engler, Steven. "Discourse." The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Edited by Kocku von Stuckrad . Brill, 2006. Brill Online. http://www.brillonline.nl/public/discourse

Engler, Steven. "Discourse." The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Edited by Kocku von Stuckrad . Brill, 2006. Brill Online. https://www.brillonline.nl/public/discourse

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: Linguistics]]

[[Category: Linguistics]]