Aplicando la Teoría del Discurso: el Método de la Articulación
Resumen
La teoría del discurso ha sido casi unánimemente criticada por no haber desarrollado de manera adecuada una reflexión metodológica que de alguna manera “pongan a trabajar” los postulados teóricos de su sofisticada ontología. El presente texto es un estudio en esta dirección. Usando como casos de aplicación los movimientos de protesta en Gran Bretaña y Sudáfrica, el texto elabora una perspectiva metodológica como “práctica articulatoria”. En este sentido el texto es un intento de desarrollar una estrategia de investigación empírica, técnicas y métodos aplicables al análisis del discurso de base postestructuralista.Referencias
ALTHUSSER, L. (1990). Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the
Scientists. London, Verso.
CAMPBELL, G. (1999). The Road to Kosovo. Boulder, Westview Press.
CIOFFI, F. (1998). Wittgenstein on Freud and Frazer. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
CONNOLLY, W. E. (1981). Appearance and Reality in Politics. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
. (1987). Politics and Ambiguity. Madison, University of Wisconsin
Press.
. (1995). The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
COX, R. (1981). Social Forces, States, and World Orders, Millennium, 10
(2): 126-55.
DANTO, A. (1965). Nietzsche as Philosopher. London, Macmillan.
DERRIDA, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, John Hopkins University
Press.
. (1982). Margins of Philosophy. Brighton, Harvester Press.
DREYFUS, H. (1986). Why studies of human capacities modelled on ideal natural science can never achieve their goal, in MARGOLIS, J.; KRAUSZ, M.
and BURIAN, R. M. (eds): Rationality, Relativism and the Human Sciences. Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff.
FLYVBJERG, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry
Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
FOUCAULT, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth, Penguin
Books.
. (1985). The Use of Pleasure. New York, Pantheon.
. (1991). Politics and the study of discourse, in BURCHELL, G.; GORDON, C. and MILLER, P. H. (eds): The Foucault Effect. London, Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
GIDDENS, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. London, Hutchinson.
GRIGGS, S. and HOWARTH, D. (2002). An Alliance of Interest and Identity?
Explaining the Campaign against Manchester Airports Second Runway,
Mobilization, 7 (1): 43-58.
HABERMAS, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge,
Polity.
HEIDEGGER, M. (1962). Being and Time. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
HOWARTH, D. (1997). Complexities of identity/difference: the ideology of
Black Consciousness in South Africa, Journal of Political Ideologies, 2
(1): 51-78.
. (2000a). Discourse. Buckingham, Open University Press.
. (2000b). The difficult emergence of a democratic imaginary: black
consciousness and non-racial democracy in South Africa, in HOWARTH,
D.; NORVAL, A. J. and STAVRAKAKIS, Y. (eds): Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change. Manchester,
Manchester University Press.
. (2002). Ethnic and Racial Identities in a Changing South Africa:
The Limits of Social Science Explanation, South African Historical
Journal, 46: 250-74.
. (2004). A Heideggerian Social Science? Heidegger, Kisiel and Wiener on the Limits of Anthropological Discourse, Anthropological Theory,
(2): 229-247.
. (2005). Hegemony, Subjectivity and Radical Democracy, in CRITCHLEY, S. and MARCHANT, O. (eds): Laclau: A Critical Reader. London,
Routledge.
JAWORSKI, A. and COUPLAND, N. (1999) (eds). The Discourse Reader. London, Routledge.
KUHN, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition,
Chicago, Chicago University Press.
LACAN, J. (2002). Ecrits. New York, Norton and Company.
LACLAU, E. (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London,
Verso.
. (2000). Constructing universality, in BUTLER, J.; E. LACLAU and S.
ZIZEK, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality. London, Verso.
LANDMAN, T. (2000). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. London,
Routledge.
MARX, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
. (1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
MITCHELL, T. (1991). Colonising Egypt. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
MULHALL, S. (1996). Heidegger and Being and Time. London, Routledge.
NEHAMAS, A. (1985). Nietzsche. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
NORVAL, A. J. (1996). Deconstructing Apartheid Discourse. London, Verso.
. (2004) Hegemony after deconstruction: the consequences of undecidability, Journal of Political Ideologies, 9 (2): 139-57.
OAKESHOTT, M. (1962). Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. London,
Methuen.
POPPER, K. (1989). Conjectures and Refutations, 5th Edition. London, Routledge.
ROBINSON, J. (1996). The Power of Apartheid: State, Power and Space in
South African Cities. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
SAID, E. (1995). Orientalism. Second Edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Salecl, R. (1994). The crisis of identity and the struggle for new hegemony
in the former Yugoslavia, in Laclau, E. (ed.): The Making of Political
Identities. London, Verso.
SCOTT, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak. Yale University Press, New Haven.
. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts,
New Haven, Yale University Press.
. (1998). Seeing like a State. New Haven, Yale University Press.
SHAPIRO, I. (2002). Problems, methods, and theories in the Study of Politics, 30(4) Political Theory, pp. 596-619.
SKINNER, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas,
History and Theory, (8): 3-53.
. (2002). Visions of Politics, Volume 1 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
SMITH, A. M. (1994). New Right Discourse on Race and Sexuality: Britain
-1990. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SOUTH AFRICAN DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION (1973). Progress Through Separate Development: South Africa in Peaceful Transition. Pretoria, South
African Government Printer.
STATEN, H. (1984). Wittgenstein and Derrida. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
TAYLOR, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of man, The Review of
Metaphysics, 25 (1): 3-51.
. (1981). Understanding and explanation in the Geisteswissenchaften,
in HOLTZMAN, S. H. and LEICH, C. M. (eds): Wittgenstein: to Follow a
Rule. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
. (1985). Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Philosophical Papers 2.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TORFING, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse. Oxford, Blackwell.
TULLY, J. (1995). Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
VAN DIJK, T. (1997a). Discourse as Structure and Process. London, Sage
VAN DIJK, T. (1997b). Discourse as Structure and Process. London, Sage.
WEBER, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York, Free
Press.
WINCH, P. (1990). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy.
Second Edition. London, Routledge.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford, Basil
Blackwell.
. (1977). Remarks on Colour. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
. (1979). Remarks on Frazers Golden Bough, in LUCKHARDT, C. G.
(ed.): Wittgenstein: Sources and Perspectives. Sussex, Harvester.
WODAK AND MEYER, (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London,
Sage.
IEK, S. (1994). The Spectre of Ideology, in ídem (ed.): Mapping Ideology.
London, Verso.
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2015 Studia Politicæ
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Se informa a los autores que una vez que sus artículos sean sometidos al proceso de referato y en su caso, aceptados para su publicación, deberán firmar el siguiente Acuerdo de Cesión de Derechos no exclusivos sobre los mismos, el cual haremos llegar vía correo electrónico para que sea debidamente completado y remitido a las autoridades de la revista.
El autor puede archivar el post-print en su versión de editor/PDF.
REVISTA STUDIA POLITICÆ
Acuerdo de publicación
Código de referato:
Titulo: .
El/los autor/es del trabajo citado más arriba certifico/amos que el mismo no ha sido publicado, ni está en vías de ser considerado para su publicación por cualquier otro medio.
El/los autor/es me/nos responsabilizo/amos de su contenido, y declaro/amos haber contribuido a la concepción, diseño y realización del mismo, haber participado en la redacción y corrección del texto oportunamente presentado a la Revista Studia Politicæ.
El/los autor/es abajo firmante/s transfiero/erimos los derechos de propiedad no exclusivos del presente trabajo a la Facultad de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba como entidad editora de la Revista Studia Politicæ.
En , a los días del mes de de .
Firmado:
Nombre/s, apellido/s y firma/s de el/los autor/es.
