Forum

Forum

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Questions from the live session

Hi Benno,

Here are just some of the many questions and comments from the textchat. Susanne will add some more:

Discourse and Critique questions:

 

  • While I might want to make a critique of someone's research/argument I need to consider what they thought they were trying to achieve and why.
  • Do norms direct behaviour or do they simply explain whatpeople do by referring to what people "intend"?
  • I think you should be able to justify why you are working by a certain nomr?
  • are there any differences between to critique and to criticize something?
  • i like how the Bible is on the same slide with the declaration of human rights :))
  • I suppose children and a truer refelction because thy havne't have time to change?
  • even the most fundamental norms can be discursively manipulated and used for external intervention
  • But we define what is racist. In the view of the person, what (s)he says later is not supposed to be understood as racist…
  • So the division between external and internal critique is rather artificial
  • how would you decide the power position of the actor?
  • This is one of the struggles in making sense of political discourse now, we used to believe coherence was being aimed for and therefore political actors could be criticised on the basis of being incoherent
  • can you recommend any books/articles that discuss this distinction between soft and hard phenomena?
  • have you come across legitimation processes? I was thinking that they would have a role to play in the positioning of power among actors
  • not being neutral means we have a (discursive) position. And it means that we are engaging in the struggle. So yes, we should try to be neutral, and even failing in doing it should be disclosed.
  • I think knowledge is essentially positional. and we should reflect on our position
  • I think in this kind of research we can't be neutral and need to reflect on our own positionality and why we do the research we do
  • I think realisng our own predjudices, as part of the process of research process, gives us a chance to, while not neutral, at least aware of this lack of neitrality.
  • think realisng our own predjudices, as part of the process of research process, gives us a chance to, while not neutral, at least aware of this lack of neitrality.
  • But when the doctor says that COVID-19 has a bad influence on the humans health is he neutral towards this illness? The same with racism, sexism etc. They have bad influence on society
  • illness, racism, sexism are also discursive categories 🙂
  • Would you please clearly explain about critique and critical analysis?

Thank you for engaging in the debate with our attentive audience!

Uschi

These comments and questions were gathered during the presentation and discussion:

  • What is a norm?
  • Do norms direct behaviour or do they  simply explain wha tpeople do by referring to what people "intend"?
  • Are there any differences between “critique” and “criticize” something?
  • Can you recommend any books/articles that discuss this distinction between soft and hard phenomena?
  • Discourse analysis could be like a description. And sometimes the description can be the best critique
  • Mitigating our lack of neutrality by being reflexive and acknowledging our point of departure
  • We can be neutral but I think we can be transparent about where we stand.
  • Within the CDA version, wouldn't be grounds of critique of racism be that it causes harms to marginalised groups? i.e. suffering or harm is implicit
  • Do we need evidence to criticize always?

Would you please  clearly explain about critique and critical analysis?