This article was downloaded by: [Shi xu] Publisher: Routledge
Transcription
This article was downloaded by: [Shi xu] Publisher: Routledge
This article was downloaded by: [Shi xu] On: 06 October 2012, At: 19:58 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrc20 Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses Shi-xu Version of record first published: 04 Oct 2012. To cite this article: Shi-xu (2012): Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses, Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies, 26:4, 484-503 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2012.723814 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu Abstract The present article argues for a culturally conscious and reflexive approach to discourse studies, beyond the discipline’s taken-for-granted multi-disciplinarity, moral stance and monologue, with a view to facilitating genuine research innovation and cultural equality and prosperity. First, it highlights the oft obscured cultural nature of mainstream discourse scholarship, the actual cultural diversity and divisiveness of contemporary human discourses, as well as cultural-intellectual resources and conditions for the formation of Cultural Discourse Studies (CDS). Next, the article illustrates a particular cultural example of the new paradigm by describing a Chinese approach to the discourses of human rights, characterised by at once a historical and an intercultural perspective. In conclusion, the article suggests action strategies for the construction and practise of the cultural mode of discourse research. Keywords: cultural scholarship, dialogue, hegemony, innovation, West-centric Introduction Certain strands of discourse studies have often presented themselves as theoretically and methodologically neutral and therefore universally applicable, indirectly or explicitly, such that, with the aid of the accelerated processes of globalisation, they have become a powerful trend in international scholarship. For one thing, they describe objects of research (‘discourse’, ‘text’, ‘social practice’, ‘cognition’, ‘context’, etc.) in a matter-of-fact way and offer their (inter- or multi-disciplinary) Shi-xu is Changjiang Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for Contemporary Chinese Discourse Studies (CCCDS), Zhejiang University, China. [email protected], www.shixu.com 26 (4) 2012 DOI: 10.1080/02560046.2012.723814 ISSN 0256-0046/Online 1992-6049 pp. 484–503 © Critical Arts Projects & Unisa Press 484 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? methods of analysis as unproblematic guarantor of valid knowledge. Hardly ever would the possibilities of the existence of other cultural concepts, theory and approaches, and of their own cultural limitations and bias, be considered. Additionally, an ethnocentric – usually Western-centric – conception of norms and values (called ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘freedom’) is deployed as if they were universal, adjudicating the discourses of other cultural communities, governments or institutions. Whether there may be culturally different standards and ideals, particular cultural or socio-economic restrictions, and culturally alternative means to achieve or maintain, moral principles are usually taken as pseudo-questions or ideologically charged pretexts or human deviations. Furthermore, it is oft taken for granted that human discourses have (more or less) the same (categories of) structure and process and operate more or less equally across cultures. Questions of whether there might be culturally different concepts and criteria of ‘discourse’, culturally divergent forms of discursive practice and local practical needs for discourse research, are usually ignored. In this article, such seen but unnoticed academic common sense and the relevant practices will be interrogated, and the author will argue in consequence for the construction of alternative paradigms of discourse research: culturally conscious, reflexive, and diverse modes of discourse studies under the heading of Cultural Discourse Studies (CDS). CDS, put briefly, is envisaged as a broad international project to create and practise a form of discourse research that is locally grounded (viz. exhibiting cultural identity and usefulness) and globally minded (viz. capable of engaging in international dialogue and showing global, human concerns). The argument will revolve round (a) the oft obscured cultural nature of discourse scholarship; (b) the actual cultural diversity and division of human discourses; and (c) the achievements, resources and conditions favourable for the construction of CDS. To illustrate such a new, culturally nuanced way of doing discourse studies, a particular cultural exemplar of CDS is presented by the author describing a research project on the Chinese discourses of human rights. It will be shown that a historical and intercultural perspective and the consequential dialectic methods reveal Chinese human rights as a growing, culturally modern discourse that is not only a positive response to American-Western discourse on the topic, but also a negative resistance to it. In conclusion, the author suggests a range of action strategies for constructing and practising the envisaged international project of CDS. It is hoped that the (multi)cultural critique and consequent re-orientation proffered here will help overcome the effects of cultural imperialism in the scholarship. Such an exercise highlights the intellectual limitations of disciplinary monologue on the one hand, and the cultural consequences of presumed universalism and objectivity on the other. Further, it encourages and enhances intercultural dialogue and critique, 485 Shi-xu ultimately increasing the chances of genuine research innovation (Shi-xu 2005, 2009). This assists in the formation of cultural voices and identities of the scholarly communities of discourse studies, especially in the hitherto marginalised, developing world. Finally, needless to say, the thoroughly culturally grounded systems of discourse research will only be more effective and congenial to understanding and solving local particular problems than the a-cultural, a-historical approaches. Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Discourse studies as cultural scholarship The tendency to over-generalise and universalise in theory and practice, implicitly or explicitly, and consequently to neglect cultural contexts and contradictions, has been identified as one of the central and debilitating problems of contemporary social science (Flyvbjerg 2001; Hollinger 1994; Smart 2003). Critical approaches to anthropology, psychology, sociology and literary criticism have long pointed to many general as well as particular cultural biases and the cultural-intellectual consequences of the mainstream social science (Clifford 1986; Said 1978; Van Dijk 1993; Wilkinson & Kitzinger 1995). For the current purpose, the cultural nature of language and communication studies in general and the cultural peculiarities of the universalising and globalising discourse of Critical Discourse Studies (CDA) in particular will be highlighted. In language and communication studies, there have already been reflexive critiques on culturally unequal and discriminating issues in the discipline (e.g. Bazerman 1998; Cameron 1992; Carey 1992; McQuail 2005; Miike 2006, 2009; Milhouse, Asante & Nwosu 2001; Shi-xu 2005, 2009; Stanley & Wise 1983). There have also been attempts at reconstructing non-Western, non-white or Third-World discourses theoretically and methodologically (e.g. Chen 2004; Dissanayake 1988; Gumperz & Levinson 1996; Kincaid 1987; Miike 2009; Ngŭgĭ 1986; Pardo 2010; Prah 2010; Young 1994). Through making transparent the particular origins, lineages, perspectives, values, concepts, interests, methods of research, power relations, etc., these works show the thoroughly cultural nature of language and communication research. But it should be stressed here that endeavours such as these are still too few and far between, and that they come largely from the margins (e.g. developing countries/non-white scholars) or originate from outside the discipline. Decolonising and reconstructive work remains an urgent imperative. At this juncture, it is necessary to caution against any possible misunderstanding about uses of ‘East’, ‘West’, ‘South’ and related terms. There has been a ‘postmodernist’ discourse-making gaining momentum that dismisses notions of the East, the West and the like as ‘essentialist’, effectively glossing over the real domination, inequality and subjugation involved. In the present study, the East and West are understood not as binary and homogeneous geographical entities, but 486 Why do cultural discourse studies? as cultural-political categories, real or potential (Shi-xu 2005; see also Jameson 1986). That is, although they have internal differences and external connections, and are open to negotiation and subject to change, they are essentially saturated with historically evolved inequalities of power. Therefore, the notions and terms of East and West are needed as what Spivak calls ‘strategic essentialism’ (Landry & MacLean 1995) in order to highlight the existing problems of cultural-political inequality, to undermine the globalisation of Western capitalism, and to reclaim the cultural identity and diversity for the underdeveloped and developing cultures. Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 CDA as culturally dubious discourse That there has been a growing body of critical scholarship on the cultural and intellectual limitations and consequences of CDA is, here, a necessary mention (see, e.g., Blommaert 2005; Jones 2007; Schegloff 1997; Shi-xu 2005, 2007, 2009; Slembrouck 2001; Stubbs 1997; Toolan 1997; Tyrwhitt-Drake 1999; Verschueren 2001; Widdowson 1995; Xin 2008). These (and other) authors have pointed to an over-reliance on universalistic concepts and perspectives and a lack of intellectual reflexivity. In this section, I shall conduct an intercultural dialogue with CDA, à la paradigms of Fairclough (1995, 2006); Fairclough and Wodak (1997); Van Dijk (1997) and Wodak (2005a & b) from a non-Western (i.e. Chinese) perspective. The central argument here will be that the scholarly discourse of CDA is culturally peculiar, not so much because it is so in itself, but because it has portrayed itself as universal – implicitly or explicitly – while it is in fact culturally singular and exclusive. European vs. Chinese origins CDA came into being either as a negative reaction to, or a continuation of, the various Euro-American-Western linguistic lineages and traditions, where forms and structures (characteristic of ‘structuralism’) are foundational concepts of research, and the Greek rhetorical tradition (Aristotle), where speech is employed for the sake of persuasion and control. From a broader perspective, CDA may be seen as embedded in Western individualist culture, where people are seen primarily as pursuing their own goals. By contrast, the Chinese scholarly tradition on language and communication, for example, is rooted in the Chinese classical philosophy of Yijing (I Ching, c. the end of the 9th century BC), Laozi (571–471 BC) and Zhuanzi (369–286 BC), where language is considered as limited in meaning, asymmetrically limitless, and in Liu Xie’s Wenxin Diaolong (Dragon-carving and the literary mind, 501–502) where taciturnity, intuition and continuous dialogical reinterpretation are central to language and communication. More broadly speaking, the Chinese tradition is anchored in Confucian (551–479 BC) culture where the highest principle 487 Shi-xu of human conduct, including communication, is ren (benevolence) for the person and he (harmony) for society. Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Binarism vs. dialecticism There is an implicit tendency in the discipline to view the universe in binary, oppositional terms and to privilege one over the other (e.g. text over context, discourse over society or cognition), or to seek a mechanical – or what is called a ‘dialectic (viz. how one of two becomes the other under certain conditions, or how not-one [e.g. not-true, not-equal] is the case)’ – relationship between the two. For example, discourse, the one, is conceptualised as opposed to society (or social cognition), the other, and likewise, speaker to hearer, the researched/criticised to the researcher/critic, false to true, dictatorship to democracy, the object of CDA to that of PDA (Positive Discourse Analysis) and so on, and then one of the two is chosen as focus of analysis and assessment. To the Chinese/Asians, however, the universe is One, a unified whole, or Oneness, of many parts interacting, interpenetrating and interchanging one another. Consequently, discourse and society (or social cognition) are parts amongst many of the same thing; research then is not about finding out the relation between two entities, say how ‘discourse’ ‘influences/constitutes’ ‘society’ or vice versa, or how ‘cognition/ideology’ ‘shapes’ ‘discourse’, but about looking at the totality and all parts of that totality, not forgetting history, culture, the recipient of the research, the researcher him/herself, etc., and the goal is to examine all relevant categories, explore the complexities, find the interconnections and highlight the dynamics of things and peoples. Meaning-in-language vs. meaning-beyond-language Under the influence of die-hard structuralism and binarism, much of discourse studies still works from the assumption that meaning is located in observable linguistic forms – fully or partially – and that is why the text, as opposed to context (including history and culture, society and cognition), is treated as the analytic core or focus in terms of formal, structural features including ‘contextual cues’ or ‘recontextualisations’, as seen in most of the journal publications and books; context is used merely as interpretive resource. But in the eyes of the Chinese/Asians, ‘language is limited in form but limitless in meaning’ and therefore suspicious or as it is admonished by Zhuanzi (369–286 BC) ‘discard the fishnet once you have caught fish, forsake the language once you have got the meaning’. That is, meaning emerges and exists only partially in linguistic forms; discourse is but an open site of infinite and continuous meaning generation and interpretation in which the researcher must rely also on subjective experience, intuition, imagination, etc. and conduct dialogue continuously with life. 488 Why do cultural discourse studies? Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Speaker-control vs. hearer-orientation From theory and analytic practice it may be seen that discourse as analytic object is treated as if it were the affair of an individualistic speaker: s/he is self-centred, goal-directed, calculating and manipulative. This is typically manifested in research practice where the speaker’s formal textual production is examined as the locus of (or otherwise clue to) meaning; the context is a mere resource for textual interpretation and how it is understood by the hearer is often treated as irrelevant. Consequently, the study of discourse becomes an activity of identifying ‘speaker meaning’ in terms of his/her own goals, intentions (or ‘cognition’, ‘ideology’) or his/her textual ‘function’ (or ‘strategies’, ‘rhetoric’). But for the Chinese/Asians, such a model of the speaker/person is one-sided, a-social, even a-moral. For, in the Chinese/Asian cultural context, there are specific norms not only for the speaker but also for the hearer, without knowledge of which proper interpretation will be impossible. Thus, the most important principle for the speaker, on the one hand, is to attend to the interests not of himself/herself/the actor, but of the other/recipient/hearer (as the saying goes, ‘Do not impose on others things you yourself do not desire’); moreover, the speaker is supposed to speak sincerely with a view to achieving ren for the person and ultimately he for society. The hearer, on the other hand, should listen fairly, critically, and holistically (as the Confucian teaching goes, ‘Do not dismiss the person just because of his/her words and do not dismiss his/her words just because of the person’; ‘Do not listen if the speech is in want of proprieties’; ‘Watch his/her deeds while listening to his/her words’). Research, then, is not about finding out the hidden ideologies, intentions, or indeed social functions of the speaker’s speech/text, but more importantly about what and how the hearer and the researcher, can and should make of it, and how society or culture should react to it. CDA as culturally exclusive discourse Apart from the cultural differences in the origins of ideas and patterns of thinking, CDA, as a cultural, scholarly discourse more broadly speaking – with its particular set of actors, modes and means of presentation, apparatus of international marketing and distribution, global teaching and learning, the Internet and wider political, economic and cultural resources – is not a neutral, equal or even independent contestant in the international academic arena. First, the locus of enunciation – as Mignolo (1993) calls it – of CDA marks it as a dominant form of discourse: it is largely the male, white or otherwise West-educated researchers who speak from the Western metropolitan centres to the rest of the world, whether in publishing or lecturing. Second, (C)DA often presents itself implicitly or explicitly as rational (e.g. by deploying multidisciplinarity), universal (e.g. by proffering grand narratives of discourse and society and cognition) and self-righteous (e.g. by adjudicating the false, the wrong, and the 489 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu bad the world over, without reflecting on one’s own possible cultural ignorance and bias), whereby it also generalises and universalises its perspectives, categories, levels and dimensions, procedures, values, etc. of analysis and assessment and standardises its research topics, questions and even conclusions. Third, in the process of such self-portrayal and self-assurance, CDA hardly ever probes into culturally other, nonWestern academic and philosophical traditions and possible contributions, let alone attempts to engage with or integrate them. Finally, this discourse becomes globalised and repressive as it is being consumed by the rest of the world, at least partly because it is encouraged, enabled and empowered by major, powerful Western corporate organisations and institutions of higher education in the forms of project funding, publications, media promotion and scientific dissemination. This kind of culturally recolonising discourse of Western knowledge and adjudication may have a host of untold (though, perhaps, unwitting) intellectual and cultural consequences. Because this discourse does not fully reflect nonWestern realities, including their history and culture, it may overshadow their real issues, concerns, aspirations, needs, and so on (Ngŭgĭ 1986; Pennycook 1998). Because the received, conventional West-centric approach may fail to represent especially new and fast-changing non-Western discourses, it risks reproducing and consolidating existing stereotypes and prejudice. Because such universalising, West-centric discourse more often than not assumes an irreverent, over-simplistic and solely negative attitude, it may engender alienation or even hostility. Because it is a monologic and exclusive discourse, it may suppress or reduce opportunities for cross-cultural-intellectual dialogue and critique, and ultimately possibilities of genuine human knowledge and research innovation. In close connection with the dominance of monologic scholarship, the intellectual traditions embodied in other languages, in other cultures, in other parts of the world, are now becoming marginalised or ignored or excluded. It should be realised, too, that non-Western scholars and students in developing countries do not enjoy the same level of socio-cultural conditions and resources as their counterparts in the rich, developed countries and this may negatively impact on their scientific productivity. In the face of the massive globalisation of Western teaching, research and publishing, non-Western potentials for cultural-intellectual regeneration are fast becoming eroded and their heritages left in decay. Certain intellectual communities have become academically dependent or, worse still, intellectually ‘aphasic’ (e.g. Cao 2008). The diversity and divisiveness of human discourses Theory and analysis of discourse nearly always concern ‘linguistic’ ‘textual’ categories and features, and a ‘social/societal’ ‘cognitive’ context in universalistic 490 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? terms. Virtually nowhere is attention paid to even the possible cultural or intercultural, and in particular cultural-power-and-inequality character, dimension or aspect of discourse. This is one of the most significant lapses of contemporary discourse studies, but this is consistent with, and congenial to, the universalist position and the colonising discourse of discourse scholarship. In order to reflect the fundamental problems of human discourses, only some of the most salient characteristics of what might be called Eastern (or Southern or Subaltern) cultural discourses will be mentioned here, as opposed to the more dominant Western counterparts (Shi-xu 2009). The discourses of Asian, African and Latin American and their diasporic peoples are characterised by a shared past and present of colonialism, cold war and imperialism since at least the 19th century, in which they were (and continue to be) dominated, exploited and excluded from social, political, economic, scientific and various other spheres. Under these historical circumstances, the Eastern communities face common problems and challenges and have similar concerns and aspirations, namely low-level industrialisation, high levels of illiteracy, poverty, famine, civil strife and tribal war, environmental disaster, birth control, economic, scientific and technological dependency, sovereignty, self-determination, peace and development – in sum, features of development and underdevelopment (Irogbe 2005; Lerner & Schramm 1967; Reeves 1993). No less importantly, the American-West-dominated international communication system (including the media, literature, education, science, as well as everyday talk) has often portrayed Asia, Africa and Latin America as backward, repressive, totalitarian, corrupt, war-like, etc., as opposed to the modern, democratic, free, benevolent West, which has tremendous consequences for the wellbeing and prospects of developing countries and societies (Casmir 1974; Chomsky 1993; Chomsky & Herman 1988; Cooks & Simpson 2007; Croteau & Hoynes 1994; Hawk 1992; Pratt 1992; Said 1978, 1993; Tanno & Jandt 1994; Van Dijk 1993). Very importantly, but far too often ignored or misunderstood, Eastern cultures have their own norms and values, in terms of age, kinship, gender, the state, etc., for human life in general and for linguistic communication in particular. For instance, some Eastern societies take humane and communal consciousness and harmony with others and with nature to be the highest principle of conduct and communication, in contrast to Western values of individual reason and control (Asante 1998, 2005; Beier, Michael & Sherzer 2002; Chen 2004, 2006; Fanon 1986; Feng-bing 2005; Freire 1985; Garcia 1983; Krog 2008; Orewere 1991: 56) and ‘equilibrium (hexie shehui [balanced society])’ is the watchword (see also Shi-xu 2009).1 Finally, there are, of course, also dynamic differences and imbalances between and within societies in Asia, Africa and Latin America, in the political, economic and various other spheres, which will require differentiated forms of research. 491 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu In addition, it should be realised that Eastern communities also share a particular set of ‘family resemblances’, as it were, in the linguistic production and interpretation of discourse. For one, the majority of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples do not speak English or other European languages as the mother tongue in their daily life; they feel that European languages – introduced during colonialism – are foreign and inadequate for their needs but that at the same time, their own native languages are discriminated against at the national and international levels (Basso 1988; Kinge’I 1999; Nodoba 2002; Orewere 1991; Prah 2002; Preuss 1989; Sherzer 1990; Urban 1986, 1991). This linguistic racism facing the Eastern world (or linguisticism as it is sometimes called) is an important point to note, particularly because international language and communication research is conducted largely through English (Lauf 2005). Furthermore, Eastern discourses are characterised by shared patterns of speaking that are harmony/other-oriented (e.g. Asante 1998; Brody 1994; Chen 2004; Urban 1991). In Asia, discourse can be harmony-oriented through affective linguistic expressions of keqi (such as politeness, see Feng 2004; Gu 1990) and mianzi (similar to ‘face’, Jia 2001); in Africa Shona is a language primarily aimed at restoring balance between people (Asante 1998: 193–196); in Latin America, ‘dialogicality’ is a widespread feature of ‘positive acknowledgement of the other’ in discourse (Urban 1991: 135). Moreover, Eastern discourses are characterised by rich and unique symbolic webs, modes and channels of communication (Cooke 1972). In Nigeria, for example, indigenous and traditional communal communication includes legends and myths, music and song, steps and dances, tribal marks, pottery and wood carvings, birds and insects, to name but a few (Orewere 1991: 55–56). Furthermore, in contrast to talk of identity, politeness, tourism, business and the war on terror in the West, peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America speak, as their topics of daily concern, of poverty, peace, development and self-determination (Duncan et al. 2002). Last but not least, Eastern discourses are comparatively poor in production, circulation and consumption, in information and efficacy, in both everyday and scientific spheres. Take their place in the international media for example: the overwhelming share of the international market and media information are in the hands of the United States and other Western powers (Reeves 1993: 1–22). According to Unesco, of every 100 titles of publications in international circulation, 85 flow from developed countries to Third-World countries (Shan 2004: 12). Principles and resources for constructing CDS It follows that a culturally conscious and critical mode of doing discourse research is not just needed, it is an urgent imperative. CDS is envisioned as an open set of research systems, differentiated at general and particular levels, of discourse philosophy, theory, methods and issues, as suggested at the outset of this article. 492 Why do cultural discourse studies? But some common principles for the construction and practice of CDS are required, which may be made explicit as follows: 1. Be locally grounded with regard to culture-specific needs and perspectives; 2. Be globally minded with regard to culturally diverse perspectives and human concerns (especially coexistence, common prosperity, knowledge innovation); 3. Be susceptible to communicating with relevant international scholarly traditions in terms of concepts, theory, methods, terminology, etc. Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 There is already critical recognition in the field of the importance of taking a cultural, or multicultural, stance on discourse studies. Van Dijk (2001: 95–96) suggests it in this way: In my many years of experience as editor of several international journals, I have found that contributions that imitate and follow some great master are seldom original. Without being eclectic, good scholarship, and especially good CDA, should integrate the best work of many people, famous or not, from different disciplines, countries, cultures and directions of research. In other words, CDA should be essentially diverse and multidisciplinary. It should be noted in this regard that there is a growing culturally critical and constructive literature which undermines the West-and-white-centric, colonialist discourse on the one hand, and on the other hand discusses principles and ways for multiculturalist research and rediscovers the particularities, diversities and unique aspects of the discourses of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America and other diasporic cultures (see, e.g., Asante 1998; Briscoe, Arriaza & Henze 2009; Carey 1992; Chen 2004; Collier 2000; Dissanayake 1988; Gavriely-Nuri 2010; Gumperz & Levinson 1996; Heisey 2000; Kincaid 1987; Kramsch 1998; Mignolo 1993; Miike 2009; Pardo 2010; Pennycook 1998; Prah 2010; Scollo 2011; Seed 1991; Shen 2001a and b; Shi-xu 2005, 2009; Silverstein & Urban 1996; Swidler 1986). Nowadays there are increasing numbers of young scholars from developing countries who travel between and are versed in both Eastern and Western cultures and scholarships, and are therefore equipped with the essential qualities and skills to construct culturally critical and innovative, or in-between-cultural (Shi-xu 2005), concepts and perspectives. It will be realised, too, that now there are increased and enhanced facilities and mechanisms for intercultural exchange, dialogue, and critique as well as collaboration, for example: international travel, the Internet, publications, translations, conferences, workshops, and international teaching and research programmes. Given the new conditions and potentials for cross-cultural learning and critiquing, it would be reasonable to expect that there will be many more students of discourse research who become champions of multicultural scholarship. 493 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu Admittedly, there are many areas where Eastern and Western traditions of concepts, ideas and techniques meet, as equivalents, variants and mutual supplements. So there is already a good basis for intercultural critique and synergy. For example, equivalents include: the Chinese research motivation of youguo youmin (worry about the nation and the people) (Davis 2009) vs. the critical concern of CDA with problems of power and inequality; and the Chinese notion of yanbu jingyi (infinite meaning for continuous reinterpretation beyond language) or the Indian notion of dhvani (suggestive meaning) (Dissanayake 2009) vs. the Western none-absolute explicitness (Carston 2009).2 Cultural variants may involve: Eastern public-image/ impression-conscious ‘face’ vs. Western freedom-oriented ‘face’; the Chinese notion of the division of word and deed as in ting qi yan er guan qi qing (listen to the other’s words but watch his/her actions) vs. the Western notion of contextualised/ situated discourse. Mutual supplements may be: the Chinese he (harmony based on diversity and balance) and the African ubuntu (humanness through connection with others) vs. the Western individual-self; the Chinese dialectic approach in terms of synthesis and creative interpretation vs. the Western binary approach in terms of objective description, analysis, explanation and critique. It is at junctures such as these where limitations and loopholes may be discovered and new concepts, theories and methods may be developed. Chinese discourse studies: the case of human rights discourses A shorthand illustration of the cultural approach envisioned above follows, through a brief description of a Chinese approach to the question of human rights discourses (Shi-xu 2012). To begin with, the Chinese discourse research system can be summarised as follows (cf. Shi-xu 2010). Philosophically, the universe is a unity of diverse elements, interconnecting, interchanging and interpenetrating one another and consequently in constant flux (‘holistic view’); knowledge is obtained through dialogue between the subject/researcher and the object/researched (‘dialectical view’); and the motive of social research is to help with the country and the world (‘societal-concern view’). Theoretically, the most important moral principle of contemporary Chinese discourse is ‘equilibrium’: the socio-cultural norm and value of achieving or maintaining harmonious relationships through balancing powers, incorporating differences, avoiding conflicts, etc. Methodologically, discourse is analysed as multiple, interdependent categories of agent, content/form/interaction, medium, purpose/consequence – all within a historical and an intercultural perspective. And finally, in terms of issues of research, development – which is the defining property and problematic of the overwhelming majority of human societies and cultures – is the overarching question, which revolves more specifically around 494 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? such matters as cultural domination and exploitation, threat to sovereignty, cultural co-existence, social inequality, corruption, climate change, and so on. From the viewpoint of this Chinese framework, a research project is formed out of two particular, interrelated concerns. At one level, China has been subjected to major perennial political conflicts and disputes with the US over the issue of human rights, but these have hardly been examined from a systematic or comprehensive perspective of discourse studies (cf. Yin 2007). At another level, Chinese political discourse, of which the Chinese discourse of human rights is a constituent part, is still little understood within the mainstream political communication scholarship, which is largely political-economically oriented and fails to reflect complex local, historical and (inter)cultural conditions (see, e.g., Brady 2002, 2008; Kuo 2001; Pye 1978; Renwick & Cao 1999). Thus, in this project, the research object is not simply divided into two different entities, say ‘discourse and society’, or ‘discourse and cognition’. The researcher and the researched are not separated from each other as right and wrong, nor are merely textual features or a few textual fragments examined, nor is the research aim simply to discover some structures or strategies or to adjudicate something as bad or false. Rather, the question of the Chinese human rights situation is treated dialectically as a complex interpretative, hermeneutic field. Thus, Chinese human rights discourses are understood in relation, for example, to Chinese history of more than 2 000 years (including the Confucian tradition) on the one hand, and the international intercultural context (especially the American-Western domination on the issue) on the other. The goal of the research, through examining all relevant aspects and relations, is to reveal the complexities, interconnections and transformations of Chinese human rights discourses. In the process, the researcher does not act as omniscient judge, but rather as compassionate, dialogical and critical researcher, while the researched is treated as speaking agent, to be questioned, listened to and understood. For this comprehensive study, two broad and related types of focal and informative data of the past 20 years (in reasonable quantity) were gathered: 1) Chinese journalistic publications; 2) government documents; 3) web information about civil and academic organisations; 4) academic publications; 5) legal documents; 6) information about the history of human rights in China; and 7) web information about Western (especially American) governments’ documents. The research focuses on five interconnected categories with special reference to China: 1) agents; 2) content/form; 3) social relationship; 4) medium; and 5) goal/ consequences. The procedures by which all these categories will be examined, which is the defining characteristic of the present approach, are: (A) historical comparison in order to highlight the quantitative and qualitative connections and changes in the situation; (B) intercultural matching and comparison, so as to show interconnections, consequences, etc. 495 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu The research brings to light a number of hitherto obscured, neglected and otherwise misunderstood aspects about China’s conditions and situations of human rights. That is, a number of interpretative and dialogical descriptions, analyses, explanations and evaluations of China’s contemporary discourse of human rights are proffered on the basis of the informative and focal data collected. First, the Chinese discourse of human rights was born in modern history and has been growing steadily in a variety of ways, especially since the start of the economic reform and ‘opening up’. There has been an increased number (and increased kinds) of speakers, groups and organisations on the matter of human rights. Further, the discourse of human rights developed from a small one restricted to political and philosophical settings, to a voluminous and multifarious one in wider society. Moreover, there have been the diversified genres, enhanced legal status and amplified official production of the discourse of human rights. Second, more importantly, the very emergence and growth of the contemporary Chinese discourse of human rights are a remarkable historic change to the cause of human rights itself, as discourse is also a form of action that can bring about social and cultural change. Thus, for one thing, China has moved from a country and cultural community without the modern concept of human rights (and so without the words for it), to one where the concept appears not just in everyday life (e.g. the media, politics, literature), but also in law. For another, the concept of human rights has changed from a negative one (as expression of bourgeois individualism) to a positive one, which is to be safeguarded. In that connection it has shifted from mainly arguing against the US government on the matter, to explicating a broader, more communally and especially developmentally oriented sense of human rights. This point will subsequently be extended here. Third, the Chinese discourse of human rights does not simply come off itself as culturally independent, but as a critical and creative cultural response to the global (and especially the American-Western) hegemonic discourse. Since the late 1980s the West (especially the US) has accused China of human rights abuses and has done so in a high-handed manner. It was against this interculturally unequal context that China reacted. From this perspective, it may be added that, paradoxically, the American-West also has a positive impact on China’s political discourse: the Chinese discourse of human rights is partially a product of that intercultural interaction process. More generally, it is part of the processes of globalisation and localisation – or glocalisation (Robertson 1992, 1995). Fourth, from another perspective it may be said that the Chinese discourse of human rights serves, effectively, to counter-balance the American-Westdominant, monopolising, repressive discourse on the topic, making international communication and debate less unbalanced. For it is not difficult to imagine that if China had kept silent, or responded less forcefully, then the current international 496 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? order of communication on human rights would have been even more unbalanced and skewed: the culturally repressive and monologic American-West-centric discourse on human rights would have been even more powerful. Fifth, in relation to the intercultural dialogue and contest, as alluded to above, it should be realised that the Chinese discourse of human rights – especially given its added emphasis on the collective (including the developmental) dimension of human rights, the historical and cultural conditions of different societies and so respect for the diversity of approaches to it – enriches international human discourse on the matter. For one, the different and new discourse enables intercultural dialogue and critique. Also, this discourse has introduced a broadened concept and a locally appropriate approach. The project could be further expanded, of course. The present research has relied mainly on public forms of communication data (including literature). To achieve an even more comprehensive and in-depth study, it would be necessary to include data from ordinary people in more private settings (e.g. interviews). Furthermore, to give the international community a fuller and more detailed picture, it would be useful to examine the internal diversity and complexity of the Chinese discourse(s) of human rights. Conclusion: a road map for cultural discourse studies Admittedly, given the current general, international and cultural imbalance and disorder in the social sciences and humanities, it will be a long and arduous struggle to resist cultural-intellectual hegemony in general and (re)colonisation in particular, in discourse scholarship. More specifically, the construction and practice of the envisaged cultural discourse studies will have to be a long-term objective which requires the concerted efforts of many groups of scholars all over the world. But there is the expectation that, given the fast-changing pace of international scholarship, heightened multicultural awareness through globalisation, and the move towards a culturally conscious and critical paradigm of social science in general and of language/communication/discourse in particular, this is an inevitable next step. All the same, some action strategies can be suggested to facilitate that process. The first and foremost action to take is to unlearn, deconstruct and decolonise the universalising (but in fact West-centric) ways of thinking, speaking and practising discourse research. Second, scholars and students the world over should strive to rejuvenate the forgotten, marginalised, disappearing heritages of native, non-Western, Third-World scholarships. Third, they need to start an earnest investigation into unfamiliar, indigenous (especially non-Western) discourses with a view to finding a locally practical, acceptable and constructive solution. Fourth, scholars and students all over the world should learn from and collaborate with one another, but especially 497 Shi-xu from and with non-Western scholarly communities, in order to create culturally diverse scholarships. Finally, especially scholars and students in disadvantaged parts of the world should be persistent in trying to disseminate their culturally innovative work to the international arena. To end this essay, Mignolo’s (1993: 131) warning is that ‘academic “knowledge and understanding” should be complemented with “learning from” those who are living in and thinking from colonial and postcolonial legacies … Otherwise, we run the risk of promoting mimicry, exportation of theories, and internal (cultural) colonialism rather than promoting new forms of cultural critique and intellectual and political emancipations.’ Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Acknowledgements An earlier version of this article was presented as plenary speech at 17th International Workshop on Discourse Studies, held in March 2011, in Madrid, Spain. The author gratefully acknowledges the support by the Social Science Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, China (Code: 11YJA740075), as well as the Basic Research Fund of Zhejiang University. Notes 1. Traditional Chinese discourse is required first and foremost to advance the moralpolitical project of the state and society (ming bu zheng ze yan bu shun) and the particular nature of the requirement or principle is to achieve and maintain equilibrium in human society (zhiguo, ping tianxia) (cf. Chen 2004; Lu 1998: 28–29). This highest principle may be seen as based on two lower-level values: the first is he, meaning harmony out of diversity (originally: harmony of different sounds and replying in conversation; junzi he er butong); and the second zhongyong, meaning moderation through choosing the middle point and/ or keeping balance. This accounts, for example, for the fact that China increasingly resists the American government’s hegemonic practice of using ‘the human right issue’ to contain China, on the one hand, and, on the other, tries to improve its human right situation at home, e.g. by writing the human right into law in 2004 and the party constitution in 2007, thereby keeping the international order of communication less unbalanced and at the same time the domestic situation of human rights more ‘attended to’. 2. Carston (2009: 59) expresses the limited limits of full explicitness of communication thus: ‘The conclusion, then, is that, for at least many, perhaps all, of the thoughts we seek to communicate, full explicitness is not possible. An element of pragmatic interpretation, more or less in different cases, is inevitable. Formulating natural-language sentences of a progressively more explicit sort may approach ever closer to a full encoding of propositions communicated, but the progression is asymptotic.’ 498 Why do cultural discourse studies? Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 References Asante, M.K. 1998. The Afrocentric idea. Revised edition. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Asante, M.K. 2005. Race, rhetoric, and identity: the architecton of soul. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Basso, K.H. 1988. Speaking with names: language and landscape among the western Apache. Cultural Anthropology 3(2): 99–130. Bazerman, C. 1998. Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. In Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, ed. J.R. Martin and R. Veel, 15–28. London: Routledge. Beier, C., L. Michael and J. Sherzer. 2002. Discourse forms and processes in indigenous lowland South America: an areal-typological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 121–145. Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: a critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brady, A.M. 2002. Regimenting the public mind: the modernisation of propaganda in the PRC. International Journal 57(4): 563–578. Brady, A.M. 2008. Marketing dictatorship: propaganda and thought work in contemporary China. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Briscoe, F.M., G. Arriaza and R.C. Henze. 2009. The power of talk: how words change our lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cowin. Brody, J. 1994. Review: performance and discourse – transcribing Latin American languages and cultures. Latin American Research Review 29(3): 249–256. Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and linguistic theory. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Cao, S.Q. 2008. The discourse of Chinese literary theory and the dialogue between Western and Chinese literary theories. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 3(1): 1–15. Carey, J.W. 1992. Communication as culture: essays on media and society. New York: Routledge. Carston, R. 2009. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 35–62. Casmir, F.L., ed. 1974. The international and intercultural communication annual, Vol. 1. New York: Speech Communication Association. Chen, G.M. 2004. The two faces of Chinese communication. Human Communication 7: 25–36. Chen, G.M. 2006. Asian communication studies: what and where to now. The Review of Communication 6(4): 295–311. Chomsky, N. 1993. Year 501: the conquest continues. Boston, MA: South End Press. Chomsky, N. and E. Herman. 1988. Manufacturing consent: the politics of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books. Clifford, J. 1986 Introduction: partial truths. In Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, ed. J. Clifford and G. Marcus, 1–26. Berkeley: University of California Press. 499 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu Collier, M.J., ed. 2000. Constituting cultural difference through discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cooke, B. 1972. Nonverbal communication among Afro-Americans. In Rappin’ and stylin’ out, ed. T. Kochman, 170–186. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Cooks, L.M. and J.S. Simpson, eds. 2007. Whiteness, pedagogy, performance. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Croteau, D. and W. Hoynes. 1994. By invitation only: how the media limit political debate. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Davis, G. 2009. Worrying about China: the language of Chinese critical inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dissanayake, W. 2009. The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: one strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4(1): 7–27. Dissanayake, W., ed. 1988. Communication theory: the Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center. Duncan N., P.D. Gada, M. Hofmey, T. Shefer, T. Malunga and M. Mashige, eds. 2002. Discourses on difference, discourses on oppression. Cape Town, SA: The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley. Fairclough, N. 2006. Language and globalization. London and New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2, ed. T. van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage. Fanon, F. 1986. Black skin, white masks. Trans. C.L. Markmann. London: Pluto Press. Feng, H.R. 2004. Keqi and Chinese communication behaviours. In Theories and principles of Chinese communication, ed. G.M. Chen, 435–450. Taipei, Taiwan: WuNan. Feng-bing. 2005. Ethnicity, children and habitus: ethnic Chinese school children in Northern Ireland. Frankfurt/New York: P. Lang. Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freire, P. 1985. The politics of education: culture, power and liberation. London: Macmillan. Garcia, E.C. 1983. Context-dependence of language and linguistic analysis. In Discourse perspectives on syntax, ed. F. Klein-Andreu, 181–207. New York: Academic Press. Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2010. The idiosyncratic language of Israeli ‘peace’: a cultural approach to critical discourse analysis (CCDA). Discourse & Society 21(5): 565–585. Gu, Y.G. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237– 257. Gumperz, J.J. and S. Levinson, eds. 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hawk, B. 1992. African’s media image. New York: Praeger. Heisey, D.R., ed. 2000. Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication. Stamford, CT: Ablex. Hollinger, R. 1994. Postmodernism and the social sciences: a thematic approach. London: Sage Publications. Irogbe, K. 2005. Globalization and the development of underdevelopment of the Third World. Journal of Third World Studies XXII(1): 41–68. 500 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? Jameson, F. 1986. Third-World literature in the era of multinational capitalism. Social Text 15: 65–88. Jia, W.S. 2001. The remaking of the Chinese character and identity in the 21st century: the Chinese face practices. Westport, CT: Ablex. Jones, P. 2007. Why there is no such thing as “critical discourse analysis.” Language and Communication 27(4): 337-368. Kincaid, D.L., ed. 1987. Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kinge’I, K. 1999. Language development research in 21st-century Africa. African Studies Quarterly 33(3): 25–29. Kramsch, C. 1998. Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krog, A. 2008. ‘ … if it means he gets his humanity back … ’: The worldview underpinning the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 3(3) (Spes): 204–220. Kuo, S-h. 2001. Reported speech in Chinese political discourse. Discourse Studies 3(2): 181–202. Landry, D. and G. MacLean. 1995. The Spivak reader: selected works of Gayati Chakravorty Spivak. London: Routledge. Lauf, E. 2005. National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Journal of Communication 55: 139–151. Lerner, D. and W. Schramm, eds. 1967. Communication and change in developing countries. Honolulu: East-West Centre Press. Lu, X. 1998. Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century B.C.E: a comparison with classical Greek rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. McQuail, D. 2005. Communication theory and the Western bias. In Read the cultural other: forms of otherness in the discourses of Hong Kong’s decolonization, ed. Shi-xu, M. Kienpointner and J. Servaes, 21–32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mignolo, W. 1993. Colonial and postcolonial discourse: cultural critique or academic colonialism? Latin American Research Review 28(3): 120–131. Miike,Y. 2006. Non-Western theory in Western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian communication studies. Review of Communication 6(1/2): 4–31. Miike, Y. 2009. New frontiers in Asian communication theory: an introduction. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4(1): 1–5. Milhouse, V.H., M.K. Asante and P.O. Nwosu, ed. 2001. Transculture: interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ngǔgĩ, W-T. 1986. Decolonising the mind: the politics of language in African literature. London: James Currey. Nodoba, G. 2002. Many languages, different cultures – effects of linguicism in a changing society. In Discourses on difference, discourses on oppression, ed. N. Duncan, P.D. Gada, M. Hofmey, T. Shefer, F. Malmya and M. Mashige, 331–357. Cape Town, South Africa: CASAS. Orewere, B. 1991. Possible implications of modern mass media for traditional communication in a Nigerian rural setting. African Media Review 5(3): 55–56. 501 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Shi-xu Pardo, L. 2010. Latin-American discourse studies: state of the art and new perspectives. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 5(3): 183–192. Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the discourse of colonialism. London: Routledge. Prah, K.K. 2010. African languages and their usages in multicultural landscapes. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 5(2): 83–86. Prah, K.K., ed. 2002. Rehabilitating African languages. Cape Town, SA: The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS). Pratt, M.L. 1992. Imperial eyes: travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge. Preuss, M.H., ed. 1989. ‘In love and war: Hummingbird lore’ and other selected papers from Laila/Alila’s 1988 symposium. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos. Pye, L.W. 1978. Communications and Chinese political culture. Asian Survey 18(3): 221– 246. Reeves, G. 1993. Communications and the ‘Third World’. London: Routledge. Renwick, N. and Q. Cao. 1999. China’s political discourse towards the 21st century: victimhood, identity, and political power. East Asia: An International Quarterly 17(4): 111–143. Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization, social theory and global culture. London: Sage. Robertson, R. 1995. Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Global modernities, ed. M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson, 25–44. London: Sage. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Said, E.W. 1993. Culture and imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Schegloff, E.A. 1997. ‘Whose text? Whose context?’ Discourse & Society 8(2): 165–187. Scollo, M. 2011. Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: a theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s cultural discourse theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6(1): 1–32. Seed, P. 1991. Colonial and postcolonial discourse. Latin American Research Review 26(3): 181–200. Shan, B. 2004. Xiandai Chuanmei Yu Shehui Wenhua Fazhan [Modern media and social development]. Xiandai Chuanmei [Modern Media] 12(1): 10–16. Shen, X.L. 2001a. Chinese grammar. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Press. Shen, X.L. 2001b. Hanyu Yufa Xue [Chinese syntax]. Nanjing: Jiangsu Jiaoyu Chubanshe [Jiangsu Educational Press]. Sherzer, J. 1990. Verbal art in San Blas: Kuna culture through its discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shi-xu. 2005. A cultural approach to discourse. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Shi-xu. 2009. Reconstructing eastern paradigms of discourse studies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4(1): 29–48. Shi-xu. 2010. Wenhua Huayu Yanjiu: Tansuo zhongguo de lilun, fangfa yu wenti [Cultural discourse studies: exploring Chinese theory, methods and issues]. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe [Beijing University Press]. Shi-xu. 2012. Understanding contemporary Chinese political communication: a historicointercultural analysis and assessment of its discourse of human rights. Journal of Language and Politics 11(1): 93–114. Shi-xu, ed. 2007. Discourse as cultural struggle. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 502 Downloaded by [Shi xu] at 19:58 06 October 2012 Why do cultural discourse studies? Silverstein, M. and G. Urban, ed. 1996. Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Slembrouck, S. 2001. Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21(1): 33–57. Smart, B. 2003. Economy, culture and society: a sociological critique of neo-liberalism. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press. Stanley, L. and S. Wise. 1983. Breaking out: feminist consciousness and feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stubbs, M. 1997. Whorf’s children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). In Evolving models of language, ed. A. Ryan and A. Wray, 100–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286. Tanno, D.V. and F.E. Jandt. 1994. Redefining the ‘other’ in multi-cultural research. The Howard Journal of Communication 5: 36–45. Toolan, M. 1997. What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it. Language & Literature 6(2): 83–103. Tyrwhitt-Drake, H. 1999. Resisting the discourse of critical discourse analysis: reopening a Hong Kong case study. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8): 1081–1088. Urban, G. 1986. Native South American discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Urban, G. 1991. A discourse-centered approach to culture: native South American myths and rituals. Austin: University of Texas Press. Van Dijk, T.A. 1993. Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage Publications. Van Dijk, T.A. 1998. Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. Van Dijk, T.A. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage. Van Dijk, T.A., ed. 1997. Discourse as interaction in society. In Discourse as social interaction, 1–37. London: Sage. Verschueren, J. 2001. Predicaments of criticism. Critique of Anthropology 21(1): 59–81. Widdowson, H. 1995. Review of Fairclough’s discourse and social change. Applied Linguistics 16(4): 510–516. Wilkinson, S. and C. Kitzinger, eds. 1995. Feminism and discourse. London: Sage. Wodak, R. 2005a. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wodak, R. 2005b. Global and local patterns in political discourses–glocalisation. Journal of Language and Politics 4(3): 367–370. Xin, Bin. 2008. Piping huayu fenxi: piping yu fansi [Critical discourse analysis: criticisms and reflections]. Waiyu Xuekan [Foreign Language Research] 6: 63–70. Yin, J. 2007. The clash of rights: a critical analysis of news discourse on human rights in the United States and China. Critical Discourse Studies 4(1): 75–94. Young, L.W.L. 1994. Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 503