Discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy

H. Larsen
{"title":"Discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy","authors":"H. Larsen","doi":"10.7765/9781526137647.00010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"increasingly popular across the social sciences, including international relations. The aim of this chapter is to outline the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. Pure rationalists often dismiss EU foreign policy as ‘just words’ or ‘declaratory diplomacy’ as it is often labelled contemptuously: ‘Even in this area [the Middle East] . . ., although EC policies were fairly well coordinated, they were primarily declaratory and had little actual effect’ (Gordon 1997: 84). According to this view, what really matters in an analysis of the effects of EU foreign policy is implicitly or explicitly seen to be the effects of clearly identifiable non-discursive practices. In general terms, the argument in this chapter is that the study of EU foreign policy lends itself well to an analysis of discourse. Because a discourse approach sees language as a material part of social reality it can analyse aspects that, in particular, rationalists, downplay. Language is seen as a rich source of analysis rather than ‘just’ words. Struggles over social meaning as they are played out in declaratory diplomacy are seen as just as central to international relations as they are to other domains of social life. Something happens when social meaning is produced in texts and talk. Discourse analysis is a theory and a method for analysing this. This does not, of course, rule out the study of power or of ‘policy effects’. Neither does it necessarily lead to a neglect of the study of other than discursive practices (if such a distinction is relevant). But it means that language is seen as having an important independent status. It is not just a mirror of other social practices or a smokescreen covering up what is ‘really happening’. The focus in this chapter is on the research potential of discourse analysis rather than on a comparison of discourse analysis with all other possible approaches to analysing European foreign policy. The main point is that there is ample scope for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy, and that much work remains to be carried out drawing more directly on the insights of discourse analysis. Henrik Larsen","PeriodicalId":301649,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137647.00010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

increasingly popular across the social sciences, including international relations. The aim of this chapter is to outline the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. Pure rationalists often dismiss EU foreign policy as ‘just words’ or ‘declaratory diplomacy’ as it is often labelled contemptuously: ‘Even in this area [the Middle East] . . ., although EC policies were fairly well coordinated, they were primarily declaratory and had little actual effect’ (Gordon 1997: 84). According to this view, what really matters in an analysis of the effects of EU foreign policy is implicitly or explicitly seen to be the effects of clearly identifiable non-discursive practices. In general terms, the argument in this chapter is that the study of EU foreign policy lends itself well to an analysis of discourse. Because a discourse approach sees language as a material part of social reality it can analyse aspects that, in particular, rationalists, downplay. Language is seen as a rich source of analysis rather than ‘just’ words. Struggles over social meaning as they are played out in declaratory diplomacy are seen as just as central to international relations as they are to other domains of social life. Something happens when social meaning is produced in texts and talk. Discourse analysis is a theory and a method for analysing this. This does not, of course, rule out the study of power or of ‘policy effects’. Neither does it necessarily lead to a neglect of the study of other than discursive practices (if such a distinction is relevant). But it means that language is seen as having an important independent status. It is not just a mirror of other social practices or a smokescreen covering up what is ‘really happening’. The focus in this chapter is on the research potential of discourse analysis rather than on a comparison of discourse analysis with all other possible approaches to analysing European foreign policy. The main point is that there is ample scope for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy, and that much work remains to be carried out drawing more directly on the insights of discourse analysis. Henrik Larsen
欧洲外交政策研究中的话语分析
在包括国际关系在内的社会科学领域越来越受欢迎。本章的目的是概述在欧洲外交政策研究中使用话语分析的可能性。纯粹的理性主义者常常把欧盟的外交政策斥为“空谈”或“宣言式外交”,因为它经常被轻蔑地贴上标签:“即使在这个地区(中东)……尽管欧共体的政策相当协调,但它们主要是宣言式的,几乎没有实际效果”(Gordon 1997: 84)。根据这一观点,在分析欧盟外交政策的影响时,真正重要的是或明或暗地被视为明确可识别的非话语实践的影响。总的来说,本章的论点是,对欧盟外交政策的研究很适合话语分析。因为话语方法将语言视为社会现实的物质部分,所以它可以分析那些被理性主义者所忽视的方面。语言被视为分析的丰富来源,而不仅仅是词汇。在宣言式外交中,围绕社会意义的斗争被视为国际关系的核心,就像它们在社会生活的其他领域一样。当社会意义在文本和谈话中产生时,会发生一些事情。语篇分析是分析这一问题的理论和方法。当然,这并不排除对权力或“政策效应”的研究。它也不一定会导致对话语实践以外的研究的忽视(如果这样的区分是相关的)。但这意味着语言被视为具有重要的独立地位。它不仅仅是其他社会实践的一面镜子,也不仅仅是掩盖“真实情况”的烟幕。本章的重点是话语分析的研究潜力,而不是将话语分析与分析欧洲外交政策的所有其他可能方法进行比较。本文的主要观点是,话语分析在欧洲外交政策研究中有很大的应用空间,而且还有很多工作需要更直接地利用话语分析的见解。亨瑞克拉森
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信