Radical contingency, radical historicity and the spread of ‘homosexualism’: A diachronic corpus-based critical discourse analysis of queer representation in The Times between 1957–1967 and 1979–1990

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Discourse Context & Media Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100623
Mark Wilkinson
{"title":"Radical contingency, radical historicity and the spread of ‘homosexualism’: A diachronic corpus-based critical discourse analysis of queer representation in The Times between 1957–1967 and 1979–1990","authors":"Mark Wilkinson","doi":"10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>This paper suggests that LGBTQI representation in </span><em>The Times</em> does more than simply construct queer subjects. Rather, by representing a sexualised Other, the language of <em>The Times</em> necessarily indexes the presence of an unmarked heterosexual population. Moreover, while LGBTQI people have historically been criminalised and discriminated against, a comparison between two historical corpora (1957–1967 and 1979–1990) demonstrates that <em>The Times</em> has consistently used language to suggest that the heterosexual population is, in fact, vulnerable to the threat of non-normative desire and sexual practices.</p><p>By considering which key phrases and collocations are consistent between the two corpora, it is revealed that the verb <em>spread</em> is used to position heterosexual people as vulnerable to both ‘homosexual conduct’ in the 1960s and the threat of HIV infection in the 1980s. This is significant because of the considerable influence broadsheet newspapers like <em>The Times</em> had on British public discourse during the latter half of the twentieth century. In order to frame the discussion, the analysis is supported by the theories of radical contingency and radical historicity (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). The former posits that subject positions are necessarily constituted by what they are not while the latter posits that subjectivities available to us in the present are always the result of political processes from the past. The social ontology of discourse theory (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) therefore provides a lens through which to interpret what diachronic newspaper data reveals about how British social attitudes were changing or staying the same during this time.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46649,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Context & Media","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 100623"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Context & Media","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695822000460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper suggests that LGBTQI representation in The Times does more than simply construct queer subjects. Rather, by representing a sexualised Other, the language of The Times necessarily indexes the presence of an unmarked heterosexual population. Moreover, while LGBTQI people have historically been criminalised and discriminated against, a comparison between two historical corpora (1957–1967 and 1979–1990) demonstrates that The Times has consistently used language to suggest that the heterosexual population is, in fact, vulnerable to the threat of non-normative desire and sexual practices.

By considering which key phrases and collocations are consistent between the two corpora, it is revealed that the verb spread is used to position heterosexual people as vulnerable to both ‘homosexual conduct’ in the 1960s and the threat of HIV infection in the 1980s. This is significant because of the considerable influence broadsheet newspapers like The Times had on British public discourse during the latter half of the twentieth century. In order to frame the discussion, the analysis is supported by the theories of radical contingency and radical historicity (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). The former posits that subject positions are necessarily constituted by what they are not while the latter posits that subjectivities available to us in the present are always the result of political processes from the past. The social ontology of discourse theory (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) therefore provides a lens through which to interpret what diachronic newspaper data reveals about how British social attitudes were changing or staying the same during this time.

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
激进偶然性、激进历史性与“同性恋主义”的传播:1957-1967年与1979-1990年间《时代》酷儿表现的历时性语料库批评话语分析
本文认为,《纽约时报》对LGBTQI的描述不仅仅是简单地构建酷儿主题。相反,通过表现一个性化的他者,时代的语言必然索引了一个未被标记的异性恋人群的存在。此外,尽管LGBTQI人群在历史上一直被定罪并受到歧视,但对两个历史语库(1957-1967和1979-1990)的比较表明,《泰晤士报》一直在使用语言来暗示异性恋人群实际上很容易受到非规范欲望和性行为的威胁。通过考虑两个语料库中哪些关键短语和搭配是一致的,可以发现动词spread在20世纪60年代被用来定位异性恋者容易受到“同性恋行为”的影响,在80年代被用来定位异性恋者容易受到艾滋病毒感染的威胁。这一点很重要,因为像《泰晤士报》这样的大报在20世纪后半叶对英国公共话语产生了相当大的影响。为了构建讨论框架,该分析得到激进权变和激进历史性理论(Laclau and Mouffe, 1985)的支持。前者认为,主体地位必然是由它们所不是的东西构成的,而后者则认为,我们现在所能获得的主体性总是来自过去的政治过程的结果。因此,话语理论的社会本体论(Laclau and Mouffe 1985)提供了一个透镜,通过它来解释历时性报纸数据揭示的英国社会态度在这一时期是如何变化或保持不变的。
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
Discourse Context & Media
Discourse Context & Media COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
The femininization of AI-powered voice assistants: Personification, anthropomorphism and discourse ideologies Scaling as method: A three-stage, mixed-methods approach to digital discourse analysis Sharing second stories in online comforting interactions Surveillance at the (inter)face: A nexus analysis Transmodal messenger interaction–Analysing the sequentiality of text and audio postings in WhatsApp chats
×
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