“Another way of putting this would be to say that discourses render the material world meaningful. Objects such as rocks, office buildings or computer systems are not denied material reality. However, if something material is not articulated within a discourse it is difficult to include it as a meaningful object for social analysis. What we find in Laclau and Mouffe (1985) is the argument that an object has a socially meaningful existence only insofar as it is rendered intelligible through discourse. Thus when material objects become the focus of human attention, then material aspects of social life are always written over with discourse. Discourses are also often embodied in certain material manifestations. For instance, technologies are always embedded within discursive arrangements. Conversely these discursive arrangements become influential insofar as they have a material embodiment in a certain technology (Bridgman and Willmott, 2006; cf Fleetwood, 2005: 201). ” (Cederström & Spicer, 2014, p.187)
Where are the boundaries of discursive arrangements?
Marttila (2016) suggests that the distinction between structuralist and post-structuralist discourse theories is flawed, suggesting that rather, it would be useful to distinguish between “strong” and “weak” types of structuralism based on the extent to which “socially meaningful reality can solely originate from relations between meaning-conveying objects” (p.19). Weak structuralism (Foucault, Geertz) assumes that the production of meaning is dependent upon the cultural codes, social norms, and non-discursive elements (e.g., institutions, power relations) underpinning relations. Conceptions of the world (valid or otherwise) are mediated by these ‘contextual circumstances’ that, and I think importantly, are “located beyond discourses and discursive practices” (p.20). Strong structuralism (Derrida, Lacan, Luhmann) argues that the origin of meaning resides solely in the “relational arrangement of meaning-conveying objects” itself; i.e. within the text. Marttila goes on to note that the contrast: for Foucault there exists a relationship between discourse and the non-discursive realm; Geetz sees cultural formations as reflecting underlying cultural codes, while for Derrida, “a text’s conditions of possibility cannot be located outside the text”.
Not too sure where I’m going with this.
References