Discourse as Social Practice

(Fairclough, Language and Power, Chapter 2, pp. 17–42)

1. Discourse is Both Constitutive and Constituted

One of the central arguments Fairclough makes is that discourse is not just shaped by
society (constituted), but it also shapes society (constitutive). This dual nature makes
discourse a form of social practice—something that does not passively reflect the world
but actively contributes to its construction.

He emphasizes that discourse contributes to:

The construction of social identities (who we are),

The construction of social relationships (how we relate to one another),

The construction of systems of knowledge and belief (how we understand the world).

These three elements work together to form the discursive practices that define
institutions, ideologies, and even common sense.

2. Orders of Discourse

Fairclough introduces the concept of “order of discourse” to explain how different social
institutions (e.g., media, education, politics) have their own structured sets of
discursive practices. These include:

Genres (types of discourse, e.g., news reports, interviews, lectures),

Discourses (ways of representing the world),

Styles (ways of being a particular type of person).

Each institution regulates which discourses are allowed, how they are delivered, and who
is authorized to speak. These orders are not fixed but are sites of struggle, where
dominant ideologies maintain power and resistance can emerge.

Example from the book: Fairclough analyzes how educational settings structure the
speech of teachers and students differently, reinforcing hierarchies of knowledge and
authority.
3. Language as Ideological

Fairclough argues that discourse is always ideological—there’s no such thing as

“neutral” language. Ideology, in this context, refers to the set of beliefs or worldviews
embedded in language that support existing power structures.

He draws on Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, explaining how ideological power becomes

effective not through coercion but through the internalization of dominant norms—
what he calls naturalization.

When ideologies are embedded in discourse and repeated over time, they appear
“natural,” “common sense,” or even invisible. This invisibility is what makes them
powerful.

For example: The way some media consistently describe one group as “terrorists” and
another as “defenders” constructs a worldview that aligns with political agendas, all
through word choice.

4. Discursive Practice as a Site of Struggle

Fairclough stresses that discourse is not simply a mirror of existing power relations; it is
also a battleground. Dominant discourses seek to maintain their position by excluding
or marginalizing alternative ones. But these dominant forms can be contested,
reappropriated, or resisted.

This makes discourse a dynamic and contested field. New discourses may emerge and
challenge the status quo—often by blending or reshaping existing discursive elements.

Example: Feminist discourse entering public policy debates—initially marginal, it slowly

becomes mainstream by negotiating with dominant political and legal discourses.

5. Discourse Practice: Production, Distribution, and Consumption

In this section, Fairclough outlines how texts are created (produced), spread
(distributed), and received (consumed). Each stage is shaped by institutional and
ideological structures:

Who gets to speak?

How is the message circulated?

Who is it intended for, and how is it interpreted?

He introduces the idea of interdiscursivity—the mixing of different discourses within a

single text or event. This reflects social change or instability in power structures.

In Sammy Obeid’s case, for example, comedy mixes political discourse, historical narrative,
and cultural identity—a form of interdiscursivity used to resist dominant frames.

6. Assumptions and Presuppositions in Discourse

Fairclough discusses how discourse often relies on assumptions—taken-for-granted

ideas that are not explicitly stated but are critical to how meaning is constructed.

These assumptions can reflect and reinforce dominant ideologies. For example, in
political speeches, terms like “security” or “terrorism” often carry presupposed meanings
that align with national interests and exclude alternative interpretations.

In stand-up, a comedian like Obeid may subvert these assumptions by restating them
ironically or highlighting their contradictions.

7. Text, Discourse, and Social Context

Lastly, Fairclough emphasizes that texts must be analyzed in relation to their broader social
and cultural contexts. A text’s meaning isn’t fixed—it changes depending on:

Who’s reading or hearing it,

In what setting,

With what prior knowledge.

Thus, discourse analysis must account for power structures, institutional settings, and
audience interpretation.
 Discourse as a Social Practice

It establishes the concept of discourse not just as language in use, but as a form of social
practice—meaning that discourse both reflects and shapes social structures. He
emphasizes the dialectical relationship between language and society.

1. The Social Nature of Discourse

Fairclough opens this section by challenging traditional linguistics, which treats language
as autonomous. Instead, he presents discourse as socially constitutive and socially
conditioned:

 Socially Constitutive: Discourse shapes identities, relationships, and systems of

knowledge.
 Socially Conditioned: It is shaped by historical, social, and institutional contexts.

This dual role means discourse is not neutral; it both reflects and contributes to power
relations.

2. Text and Discourse

He draws an important distinction between text and discourse:

 A text is a concrete product of discourse—a spoken or written piece.

 Discourse, in contrast, includes the production, dissemination, and interpretation of
these texts in social contexts.

He argues that meaning is not contained solely within texts, but emerges through the
interaction between texts and their socio-cultural environments.

3. Orders of Discourse

Fairclough introduces the concept of "orders of discourse"—configurations of genres,

discourses, and styles that are tied to specific institutions (e.g., media, law, education).

 For example, a university lecture follows different conventions than a courtroom

interrogation.
  These "orders" define what is possible or appropriate in terms of language use
within given social settings.

Changes in discourse (e.g., managerial language entering academia) often reflect or drive
broader social changes.

4. Power and Ideology in Discourse

Discourse is a vehicle for power:

 Those in dominant positions often control discourse, shaping what is said, how it’s
said, and who can speak.
 This control often becomes hegemonic—appearing natural or common-sense (e.g.,
corporate language being normalized in universities).

Ideology operates within discourse subtly. It doesn’t always express overt bias but works
through presuppositions, implications, and omissions.

5. Discourse and Hegemony

Fairclough uses Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony to frame how dominant groups
maintain power through consent rather than coercion.

 Discourse contributes to ideological hegemony by making particular ways of

thinking and speaking seem natural.
 For example, the spread of neoliberal values (competition, self-responsibility)
through education and media discourses reinforces capitalist structures.

Discourse here is part of the struggle for hegemony, shaping the limits of what is
thinkable and sayable.

6. Interdiscursivity and Textual Analysis

He introduces interdiscursivity—the mixing of different discourses and genres within a

text.

 Example: A job interview may combine elements of friendly conversation,

psychological assessment, and corporate evaluation.
  This hybridity can signal social change or ideological struggle, especially when
previously distinct discourses begin to overlap.

Textual analysis, then, must consider not just grammar or vocabulary, but also genre,
discourse type, and style, and how these relate to broader power structures.

7. Discourse as Practice: Three Dimensions

Fairclough proposes a three-dimensional framework for analyzing discourse:

1. Text: The linguistic features and organization of the discourse.

2. Discursive Practice: The production and interpretation processes (who says what,
how it is received).
3. Social Practice: The broader socio-cultural and institutional context.

This model underlines that discourse analysis must move from textual features to social
implications.

8. Critique and Emancipation

Finally, Fairclough asserts the critical dimension of CDA:

 It is not merely descriptive but aims to uncover hidden power relations.

 CDA aspires to raise awareness and potentially change unjust social structures by
revealing how discourse maintains them.

Fairclough stresses that language analysis is not neutral: it can serve emancipatory
purposes by denaturalizing ideologies embedded in discourse.

Concept Explanation
Discourse A form of social practice, both shaping and shaped by society.
Text A product of discourse, e.g., written or spoken language.
Orders of Discourse Institutional norms governing discourse types.
Power Embedded in discourse; controls language and access to
speech.
Ideology Embedded assumptions within discourse that sustain power.
Hegemony Dominance through consent, reinforced by discourse.
Interdiscursivity Mixing of discourses; indicative of social shifts.
Three Dimensions Text, Discursive Practice, Social Practice.
CDA Goal Reveal and challenge power inequalities in discourse.