Economics as ideological discourse practice: a Gramsci-Foucault-Lacan approach to analysing power/knowledge regimes of subjectivation

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION Journal of Multicultural Discourses Pub Date : 2021-01-28 DOI:10.1080/17447143.2021.1877294
Jens Maesse, G. C. Nicoletta
{"title":"Economics as ideological discourse practice: a Gramsci-Foucault-Lacan approach to analysing power/knowledge regimes of subjectivation","authors":"Jens Maesse, G. C. Nicoletta","doi":"10.1080/17447143.2021.1877294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ideology analyses play an important role in Cultural Discourse Studies because they investigate complex meaning production within various political systems and power structures. The notion of ideology can be analysed in different dimensions. Whereas Marx and Engels proposed a negative as well as a positive conception of ideology, sociologists such as Mannheim understood ideologies as sets of ideas and general world views. Some scholars in Discourse Studies seem to follow a conception of ideology that is located in-between Mannheim’s conception and Marx’s negative idea of ‘false consciousness’. In this paper we define ideology as a political discourse practice devoted to exerting power and influence. Following Marx’s positive notion, ideology is seen as a modality that regulates the relationship between the subject and a specific system of knowledge related to political action. Here, ideology refers to discourses as knowledge/ power regimes where the political-power aspect is suppressed through the subjectivation process itself. Following Gramsci, Foucault and Lacan, our theoretical framework helps us to analyse ideological discourse practices as different modalities of subjectivation. We propose three types of ideological subjectivation: oppressive forms, normalizing forms and resisting forms. Finally, these forms are illustrated with examples from economic expert discourses from Italy and Germany.","PeriodicalId":45223,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multicultural Discourses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17447143.2021.1877294","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multicultural Discourses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2021.1877294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Ideology analyses play an important role in Cultural Discourse Studies because they investigate complex meaning production within various political systems and power structures. The notion of ideology can be analysed in different dimensions. Whereas Marx and Engels proposed a negative as well as a positive conception of ideology, sociologists such as Mannheim understood ideologies as sets of ideas and general world views. Some scholars in Discourse Studies seem to follow a conception of ideology that is located in-between Mannheim’s conception and Marx’s negative idea of ‘false consciousness’. In this paper we define ideology as a political discourse practice devoted to exerting power and influence. Following Marx’s positive notion, ideology is seen as a modality that regulates the relationship between the subject and a specific system of knowledge related to political action. Here, ideology refers to discourses as knowledge/ power regimes where the political-power aspect is suppressed through the subjectivation process itself. Following Gramsci, Foucault and Lacan, our theoretical framework helps us to analyse ideological discourse practices as different modalities of subjectivation. We propose three types of ideological subjectivation: oppressive forms, normalizing forms and resisting forms. Finally, these forms are illustrated with examples from economic expert discourses from Italy and Germany.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为意识形态话语实践的经济学:葛兰西-福柯-拉康分析主体化的权力/知识体制的方法
意识形态分析在文化话语研究中发挥着重要作用,因为它研究了各种政治制度和权力结构中复杂的意义产生。意识形态的概念可以从不同的维度进行分析。马克思和恩格斯提出了消极和积极的意识形态概念,而曼海姆等社会学家则将意识形态理解为一套思想和一般世界观。话语研究中的一些学者似乎遵循了一种意识形态的概念,这种概念介于曼海姆的概念和马克思的“虚假意识”的否定思想之间。在本文中,我们将意识形态定义为一种致力于施加权力和影响的政治话语实践。根据马克思的积极概念,意识形态被视为一种调节主体与政治行动相关的特定知识体系之间关系的模式。在这里,意识形态指的是作为知识/权力政权的话语,其中政治权力方面通过主观主义过程本身被压制。继葛兰西、福柯和拉康之后,我们的理论框架帮助我们分析意识形态话语实践作为不同的主观主义模式。我们提出了三种类型的意识形态主观主义:压迫形式、规范形式和反抗形式。最后,以意大利和德国的经济专家话语为例说明了这些形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
The media and civil protests in Africa: contextualising Nigerian press coverage of #EndSARS Enchronic cultural discourse analysis: a semio-cultural study of national identity discourse of Saudi Founding Day A rhetorical-political framework for multilingual and translingual scholarship Interfacing the cultural dialectics of commodification and resistance: Nubian spatial/narrative repertoires as markers of hybrid diaspora culture Revisiting translation as transculturation: from ancient Chinese origin ‘Djargron’ to global representation ‘Dragon’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1