I have always had mixed feelings about discourse and (especially) social constructivism theory. At the most basic level, my concern is that if we take social constructive theory at face value, I would have to question how anyone (including Foucault) could ever really "escape" and objectively analyze language's role in constructing realities. To elaborate a bit further, if language constructs realities, then wouldn't the authors also be "trapped" by language? Of course authors such as Foucault would argue that true objectivity is impossible. And while I must say that I do agree with them to an extent, I also feel that sometimes individuals place too much stock in discourse analysis's ability to analyze, predict, and reflect ideas and attitudes about issues (especially housing-related issues). The reason that I feel discourse theory is somewhat limited is that language is constrained by what can be expressed by words. For example, someone might have multiple feelings about an area, feelings that might be conflicting or contradictory. Language, while powerful, cannot fully capture the person's attitudes simply because words cannot express full ranges of feelings, attitudes, and emotions. Herein lies a fundamental flaw with discourse analysis and social constructivism theory--namely the fact that the theories are constrained by language. Foucault (and others) equate language/discourse as reflecting an individuals' thoughts. However, as many of us can attest to, there are many times that language simply cannot express (or project) what we are thinking or feeling. Likewise, this means that while language can play an important role in influencing our perceptions of the world; it also is limited.
"The purpose of discourse analysis is to understand how the deployment of language has social content and social effects (Hastings, 2010, p. 132)." Based on this definition I believe that this theory has importance in the field of housing. Just think of the oral communication styles in communities of color. I disagree with Luke, because of the history of the use of language in cultures. Some cultures do not have a written language, such as those with Asian and African heritages. As researchers in order to understand housing in the social construct oral history might be way to clearly hear from those who marginalized. I appreciate qualitative research because we give homage to this voices being herd.
Discourse theory analysis is based on how something is said. When applied to social constructivism, the study helps us understand housing qualitatively through a public conversation. The public discussion of housing comes more naturally from the model by Hunter and Nixon (1999) where the subject of tenure stigmatization occurs within a public realm between the tenant and the owner or landlord. However, many other qualities of housing are inherently private for most cultures. This raises a logistically question: how can an outside researcher analyze the discourse within the private realm? When someone enters the home, the discourse of that environment will likely shift to accommodate the new member. There is not an explicit explanation within the theory that justifies the influence of the researcher in the theory process. Discourse theory lends itself to the public conversation, not the jargon of sub-groups. The theory inherently applies itself to the analyses of any set of data from interviews. Discourse theory is vital when encountering a sub-culture who may use alternative terminology. I find this to be a fascinating theory and adaptable enough to be informative in most levels of analysis, as outlined above. But I question its use within the private realm of housing.
Building on Katie's comments, I wonder if we could examine discourse, especially around housing, through the lens of customs around hospitality. In a lot of cultures, thinking about the Middle East as a well known example, hospitality is paramount among moral actions. Traditions from welcoming in the stranger to giving the guest the best parts of a meal would suggest that the discourse around the home are molded for the visitor and any private narratives are actively hidden from the outsider to portray greater wealth and abundance for their benefit. More broadly, I think Discourse is a great tool when looking at non-traditional populations around housing such as homeless people. When you do not have a home, how do you talk about home? Is home a city or personal objects (as in the article about women in shelters)? I imagine it can be hard for researchers to know the correct terminology to use when entering a situation and may shut down communication by not recognizing what may be home for someone and using exclusionary language.
I am one of the three co-editors of the only book so far on social constructionism in housing research, published in 2004 by Ashgate, nearly a decade ago. I was also the founder editor of Housing, Theory and Society. Funnily enough I spent a year at Minnesota University in 1971/72 as a TA in sociology. I found this website by a search of the title of the Ashgate book. My home page has numerous references to my work if anyone is interested.
At the outset, I would like to thank you for the effort put in writing the article. He helped me immensely, and some things have become clear to me. Particularly those contained in this article -> http://junglemoosehack.wordpress.com/. For sure I put a link on your Facebook - link probably give the name Jungle Moose Hack to my friends it zaciekawili. And I have a lot of friends who are interested in computers and everything associated with them.
I have always had mixed feelings about discourse and (especially) social constructivism theory. At the most basic level, my concern is that if we take social constructive theory at face value, I would have to question how anyone (including Foucault) could ever really "escape" and objectively analyze language's role in constructing realities. To elaborate a bit further, if language constructs realities, then wouldn't the authors also be "trapped" by language?
ReplyDeleteOf course authors such as Foucault would argue that true objectivity is impossible. And while I must say that I do agree with them to an extent, I also feel that sometimes individuals place too much stock in discourse analysis's ability to analyze, predict, and reflect ideas and attitudes about issues (especially housing-related issues). The reason that I feel discourse theory is somewhat limited is that language is constrained by what can be expressed by words. For example, someone might have multiple feelings about an area, feelings that might be conflicting or contradictory. Language, while powerful, cannot fully capture the person's attitudes simply because words cannot express full ranges of feelings, attitudes, and emotions.
Herein lies a fundamental flaw with discourse analysis and social constructivism theory--namely the fact that the theories are constrained by language. Foucault (and others) equate language/discourse as reflecting an individuals' thoughts. However, as many of us can attest to, there are many times that language simply cannot express (or project) what we are thinking or feeling. Likewise, this means that while language can play an important role in influencing our perceptions of the world; it also is limited.
I wrote the above comment. I just forgot to sign in! :)
ReplyDelete"The purpose of discourse analysis is to understand how the deployment of language has social content and social effects (Hastings, 2010, p. 132)." Based on this definition I believe that this theory has importance in the field of housing. Just think of the oral communication styles in communities of color. I disagree with Luke, because of the history of the use of language in cultures. Some cultures do not have a written language, such as those with Asian and African heritages. As researchers in order to understand housing in the social construct oral history might be way to clearly hear from those who marginalized. I appreciate qualitative research because we give homage to this voices being herd.
ReplyDeleteDiscourse theory analysis is based on how something is said. When applied to social constructivism, the study helps us understand housing qualitatively through a public conversation. The public discussion of housing comes more naturally from the model by Hunter and Nixon (1999) where the subject of tenure stigmatization occurs within a public realm between the tenant and the owner or landlord. However, many other qualities of housing are inherently private for most cultures. This raises a logistically question: how can an outside researcher analyze the discourse within the private realm? When someone enters the home, the discourse of that environment will likely shift to accommodate the new member. There is not an explicit explanation within the theory that justifies the influence of the researcher in the theory process.
ReplyDeleteDiscourse theory lends itself to the public conversation, not the jargon of sub-groups. The theory inherently applies itself to the analyses of any set of data from interviews. Discourse theory is vital when encountering a sub-culture who may use alternative terminology. I find this to be a fascinating theory and adaptable enough to be informative in most levels of analysis, as outlined above. But I question its use within the private realm of housing.
Building on Katie's comments, I wonder if we could examine discourse, especially around housing, through the lens of customs around hospitality. In a lot of cultures, thinking about the Middle East as a well known example, hospitality is paramount among moral actions. Traditions from welcoming in the stranger to giving the guest the best parts of a meal would suggest that the discourse around the home are molded for the visitor and any private narratives are actively hidden from the outsider to portray greater wealth and abundance for their benefit.
ReplyDeleteMore broadly, I think Discourse is a great tool when looking at non-traditional populations around housing such as homeless people. When you do not have a home, how do you talk about home? Is home a city or personal objects (as in the article about women in shelters)? I imagine it can be hard for researchers to know the correct terminology to use when entering a situation and may shut down communication by not recognizing what may be home for someone and using exclusionary language.
I am one of the three co-editors of the only book so far on social constructionism in housing research, published in 2004 by Ashgate, nearly a decade ago. I was also the founder editor of Housing, Theory and Society. Funnily enough I spent a year at Minnesota University in 1971/72 as a TA in sociology. I found this website by a search of the title of the Ashgate book.
ReplyDeleteMy home page has numerous references to my work if anyone is interested.
Having a debt issue? Seek global debt collection with mnc or milliken & craig for your domestic collection.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to seo, we know where to go. But when it comes to development, have you tried review on mobile application development yet>
ReplyDeleteAt the outset, I would like to thank you for the effort put in writing the article. He helped me immensely, and some things have become clear to me. Particularly those contained in this article -> http://junglemoosehack.wordpress.com/. For sure I put a link on your Facebook - link probably give the name Jungle Moose Hack to my friends it zaciekawili. And I have a lot of friends who are interested in computers and everything associated with them.
ReplyDelete