Creating Intersectional Subjects: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Health Science Breastfeeding Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 233264922098109
Author(s):  
Shannon K. Carter ◽  
Ashley Stone ◽  
Lain Graham ◽  
Jonathan M. Cox

Reducing race disparities in breastfeeding has become a health objective in the United States, spurring research aimed to identify causes and consequences of disparate rates. This study uses critical discourse analysis to assess how Black women are constructed in 80 quantitative health science research articles on breastfeeding disparities in the United States. Our analysis is grounded in critical race and intersectionality scholarship, which argues that researchers often incorrectly treat race and its intersections as causal mechanisms. Our findings reveal two distinct representations. Most commonly, race, gender, and their intersection are portrayed as essential characteristics of individuals. Black women are portrayed as a fixed category, possessing characteristics that inhibit breastfeeding; policy implications focus on modifying Black women’s characteristics to increase breastfeeding. Less commonly, Black women are portrayed as a diverse group who occupy a social position in society resulting from similar social and material conditions, seeking to identify factors that facilitate or inhibit breastfeeding. Policy implications emphasize mitigating structural barriers that disproportionately impact some Black women. We contribute to existing knowledge by demonstrating how dominant health science approaches provide evidence for health promotion campaigns that are unlikely to reduce health disparities and may do more harm than good to Black women. We also demonstrate the existence of a problematic knowledge set about Black women’s reproductive and infant feeding practices that is both ahistorical and decontextualized.

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824402110041
Author(s):  
Mohsin Hassan Khan ◽  
Farwa Qazalbash ◽  
Hamedi Mohd Adnan ◽  
Lalu Nurul Yaqin ◽  
Rashid Ali Khuhro

The emergence of Donald Trump as an anti-Muslim-Islam presidential candidate and victory over Hillary Clinton is an issue of debate and division in the United States’ political sphere. Many commentators and political pundits criticize Trump for his disparaging rhetoric on Twitter and present him as an example of how Twitter can be an effective tool for the construction and extension of political polarization. The current study analyzes the selected tweets by Donald Trump posted on Twitter to unmask how he uses language to construct Islamophobic discourse structures and attempts to form his ideological structures along with. The researchers hypothesize that Islamophobia is a marked feature of Trump’s political career realized by specific rhetorical and discursive devices. Therefore, the study purposively takes 40 most controversial tweets of Donald Trump against Islam and Muslims and carried out a critical discourse analysis with the help of macro-strategies of the discourse given by Wodak and Meyer and van Dijk’s referential strategies of political discourse. The findings reveal that Trump uses language rhetorically to exclude people of different ethnic identities, especially Muslims, through demagogic language to create a difference of “us” vs. “them” and making in this way “America Great Again”.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Galindo ◽  

The purpose of this study is to analyze how, in news articles published in online versions of print newspapers from both the United States and Mexico, media represent Mexican immigrants based on the wording they use in articles about immigration issues. The study was done by analyzing, counting and comparing the words used by newspapers. Using critical discourse analysis as methodology, this study aims to contribute to a growing body of literature on the language used by the media and its influence on media consumers. 


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Beshara

In this article, I dissect an excerpt from George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress and the American people wherein the former President of the United States (POTUS) uttered the (catch)phrase the ‘war on terror’ (WOT). To accomplish this dissection, I apply Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) together with Lacanian psychoanalysis among other critical tools. My aim here is to deconstruct/recode the WOT discourse in the hope of opening up possibilities for alternative, and more constructive, counter-discourses on the social problem of ‘terrorism’ that afford multiple subject positions beyond the (counter)terrorism binary. As an Orientalist ideology, the WOT indexes the larger archive of American exceptionalism and can be traced back to the rise of the neo-conservative movement in the 1980s. This analysis is particularly relevant in the context of the current political climate in the United States, where the WOT rhetoric continues to normalise the logic of Islamophobia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafiqoh Fitriani ◽  
Hanny Hafiar ◽  
Ari Agung Prastowo

This research aimed to describe a critical discourse analysis about hegemony where United States positionedtheir country as superpower country in Captain America: Steve Rogers comic series. Method used in thisresearch was Critical Discourse Analysis Norman Fairclough with qualitative data and critical paradigm. Theresults of this research showed that Captain America: Steve Rogers comic series has hegemony messages ofUnited States as superpower country. It was reflected through appearance, personality, words, and theideology of Captain America while positioning the enemy as the opposites of the aspects above. CaptainAmerica: Steve Rogers used social, historical, and political factors to ease their hegemony messages beingabsorbed by reader. The conclusion of this study is Captain America: Steve Rogers comic series have nationbranding hegemony messages of the United States as a superpower country. Furthermore, it is expected thatthe study about hegemony would get more attention because hegemony subject would evolve socially andideologically in our society.


Author(s):  
Charles G. Ripley

Critical discourse analysis continues to remain a valuable method for understanding foreign policy. Situated in the broader interpretive methodological approach to the social sciences, it challenges the ontological and epistemological assumptions of more positivist methodologies by observing that the world is not pregiven, but socially constructed. In essence, we live in an intersubjective world where discourse serves as a powerful tool to set agendas, produce meaning, legitimize interests, and enforce power structures. Scholars devoted to discourse analysis enrich our understanding of foreign policy by highlighting the powerful role that discourse ultimately plays. One useful way of understanding its value is through representational practices. Relying upon the study of discourse from a wide range of sources (politicians, policymakers, scholars, journalists, and film), this research program emphasizes discursive representations. Far from being neutral representations, the United States constructs a U.S.-centric view of the world based on its own images, identities, and interests, while marginalizing the voices and experiences of others. U.S. foreign policies are described as positive. Those of other countries, particularly U.S. so-called enemies, are negative. Our knowledge of the world comes from these representational practices, which in turn has serious implications for foreign policy. Ultimately, discursive activities are used not only to frame and define foreign policy initiatives, but also sell such policies to the broader public. U.S. military interventions help illustrate this point. Interventions in Panama and Iraq become “Just Cause” and “Iraqi Freedom,” whereas interventions by, say, Russia are “acts of aggression.” Discourse often develops into binary oppositions that inform policy and create and sustain a dominant world position. Compared to the Global South, the United States is “developed” and “civilized,” while other nations are “underdeveloped” and “uncivilized.” Discourse analysis is not limited to military intervention. Scholars have applied the approach to a broad array of foreign policy initiatives, ranging from foreign aid and diplomacy to international economics. Nor is the approach limited to the United States; it has evolved into a far-reaching research program that offers insight into the foreign policy of any state. Discourse analysis stands in stark contrast to the more rationalist approaches, such as neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. These approaches, related to scientific positivism, emphasize self-interest, rational actors, material factors, objectivity, and causal hypotheses. Academics related to this scholarly community have expressed dissatisfaction with discourse analysis. Most important, critics point out that there is an objective reality, and therefore, research has little relevancy for the real world. But scholars who focus on discourse concede that there is a reality; however, reality has no value until we attach meaning to it. The deadly attacks of September 11, 2001, happened, but they remain neutral until discursive activities (enemy, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and so on) frame them and inform foreign policy. Consequently, such representations have real-world relevancies, justifying war and surveillance, among other courses of action. Critical discourse analysis, as a result, has significant value for understanding foreign policy in the past, present, and future.


Author(s):  
Mohammad Mohammadi ◽  
Javad Javadi

The present study reports on the latest and newest hot topic in the world, the United States Presidential Election. So, this is the newest attempt to explore and discover interrelation of discourse structures and ideological structures of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech in the United States Presidential Election, 2016 as a good sample of his language use in presidential campaign. In so doing, the current study utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model to unmask the use of power and hidden strategies through language use. Also we analyze and uncover the experiential, relational and expressive values of the wordings, metaphors and grammatical structures of Trump’s language use.  Furthermore, this study tries to show that there are linguistic traces that depict the strategy and ideology in the text as well. The findings of the present study can be provocative for English foreign language learners to promote their analytical skills. Therefore, findings of the present article can be applied to English Reading Comprehension and Reading Journalistic Texts classes. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document