scholarly journals Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice by Paul Chilton

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 306-308
Author(s):  
Daniel C. O'Connell ◽  
MANUSYA ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-38
Author(s):  
Charles Freeland

Aristotle understood ethics to be a practical rather than a theoretical science. It is a pragmatics, if you will, concerned with bringing about a good life . But the problem and the question from which Aristotle’s ethics begins arid to which it constantly returns concerns the relation of the theoretical to the practical: his concern is for the type or mode of discourse one could use in providing an account of the good life (Eudaimonia). Is this a propositional, apophantic discourse, a discourse claiming to represent the truth and what is true and from which one could then go on to prescribe a course of action, or, and this may be closer to Aristotle, is the philosophical discourse on ethics rather a descriptive one which takes humankind for what it is, not what it ought to be? This relation between theory and practice, between description and prescription, between science and action, is a question and a problem for Aristotle. It is my purpose to take up this question in connection with Aristotle’s texts on Eudaimonia. Another question shall be raised here: What is the relevance of Aristotle’s treatment of Eudaimonia to our contemporary, “modern” concern for ethics and the good life? I would assume, naively perhaps, that even today we are not indifferent to this question of what is a good life, and that we are not indifferent to the many ways in which the “good life” has been described. It would seem, then, that Aristotle’s texts have a particularly striking importance for us today insofar as we prolong the philosophical questioning of the possibilities for ethical and political discourse today and continue to ask who and what we are as human beings.


Author(s):  
Natalie Papanastasiou

The first aim of this chapter is to present an introductory discussion to the book’s empirical focus on education governance. It demonstrates that education governance is a field that is teeming with politics of scale and therefore constitutes an ideal focus for exploring the book’s overarching conceptual puzzle. The second aim of the chapter is to present a useful entry point for policy scholars seeking to explore possible practices of scalecraft in policy contexts. The discussion outlines the key tenets of a genealogical perspective which draws on political discourse theory and pays particular analytical attention to the ‘dislocatory moments’ of policy. By tracing how European education policy evolved over time, the discussion empirically illustrates how a genealogical perspective is an invaluable lens for exposing the contingency of scale hegemonies and that this serves as an essential starting point for problematising scalar politics.


2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-118
Author(s):  
Anita Mir

M. A. Muqtedar Khan’s (ed.) Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory,Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives examines how Muslim thinkershave and are trying to formulate systems for good and ethical self-governanceand the necessity, therein, for political discourse. The debates in theseessays, which span a wide range of subjects and periods, are held togetherby a common principle: political discourse has a long standing in theMuslim world. Given that the Muslim world’s conventional image is one inwhich autocratic regimes prevail, the significance of this argument, presentedhere from its theological, legal, and regional perspectives, is of greatimportance. For political discourse to be meaningful – that is, for it to be an exercisein the clarification and exchange of ideas and to lead, in some instances, toaction – requires that it take place both in the public and private sphere. Thepublic sphere may be more readily recognized as the proper space forpolitical discourse. However, the slippage of political discourse over to theprivate sphere is also of great value in that it indicates two things: first, politicalideas are recognized as important to both a person’s collective and individualsensibilities and, second, while political discourse is expounded in thepublic sphere, its ideas are often first worked out and subsequently reflectedupon in the private sphere ...


Author(s):  
Yannis Stavrakakis

Abstract As far as the study of (left) populism is concerned, Political Discourse Theory has been largely associated with a novel and challenging take on populist politics, first emerging in Laclau’s work in the 1970s and preoccupying Laclau, Mouffe and their co-travellers continuously since then. What has not been adequately articulated yet is what would be the limits of (left) populism as a political strategy from a discursive perspective. This short paper aims at remedying this lacuna in the relevant literature indicating certain ways forward for the discursive analysis of populism. The argument operates both at a theoretical and conceptual level as well as at the level of historical, empirical analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document