ABSTRACT
The term “discourse” is interpreted as spoken and written stretches of language which join together to enable ‘the production of knowledge through language’ (Hall 1995a, 201). “Discursive practice” is thus ‘the practice of producing meaning’ (Hall 1995a, 201). Since discourses form and reflect beliefs which serve the interests of particular social and political groups, they can be seen as similar but not identical to what political scientists refer to as “ideologies”. The main difference between discourses and ideologies arises, according to Stuart Hall, from Foucault’s theory ‘that ideology is based on a distinction between true statements about the world (i.e. science) and false statements based on beliefs (ideology)’. Statements about social, political or moral issues can, however, rarely be shown to be either true or false, since so-called “facts” can be presented and interpreted in various ways, and the language which is used to present them can interfere with the process of interpretation (Hall, 202f.). Through the language used to describe so-called “facts”, “discourse” can claim truth for statements which appear false. Thus, it is that ‘“discourse” sidesteps the problem of truth/falsehood in ideology’ (Hall 1995a, 203). It is the discourse-maker with the most power who is able to create “truth” and influence others: discourse constitutes and spreads power, and ‘power produces knowledge’ (Foucault 1980, 27). As far as this study is concerned, views and beliefs are interpreted within the context of the historical moment in which they were formed, and the ideologies and knowledge of the discourse producers.
