Resisting Power in Discourse

The majority of studies in critical discourse analysis focus exclusively on one aspect of the language/power relation, language as a context for power and domination. Fairclough (1994:50) argues that power is “implicit within everyday social practices” and that it is predominant “at every level in all domains of life”. Similarly, Chaika (1994:4) remarks that everyday discourse and journalistic discourse are “effective ways to maintaining power relations within society.” Fowler (1985) contends that language continuously constitutes the statuses and roles upon which people base their claims to exercise power, and the statuses and roles which seem to require subservience. The aforementioned studies are guided by Fairclough's model which addresses the way language encodes power relations in discourse analysis. The aforementioned studies dealt with only one aspect of the relation between language and power. They deal with discourse as a context for power to be enacted, maintained and perpetuated. On the other hand, discourse as a context for power resistance is neglected. Van Dijk (1993:250), one of the main proponents of critical discourse analysis, admits that he is more interested in top- down relations of dominance than bottom-up relations of resistance, compliance and acceptance.” He continues to argue that although an analysis of the notion of resistance needs to be included in a broader theory of power,” his approach focuses on the elite and their discursive strategies for the maintenance of inequality.” Even when van Dijk refers to people who are denied power, he portrays them as ‘victims who help perpetuate injustice and reproduce dominance and inequality.