Who writes graffiti in Zimbabwe’s urban areas?

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Introduction

The previous chapter provided an outline of the research that has been carried out in and around the area of graffiti. It was revealed that most of the research conducted on graffiti mostly focuses on either graffiti’s transgressive nature or its classification as a form of art. Both of these approaches fuel the negative view that mostly justify discounting graffiti as an illegitimate and ‘unserious’ form of discourse that does not need or warrant serious attention both from an academic point of view and a policy-making and planning point of view. This chapter builds on the review of the literature by making an explication of the theoretical framework underpinning data analysis in the present research. The researcher, therefore, makes an account of Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth referred to as CDA) and demonstrates how it is going to be employed in the research for the analysis and interpretation of graffiti found in Zimbabwe’s selected urban areas. The researcher argues that since CDA views language as a social practice there is serious need to incorporate aspects of Social constructionism (SC) in CDA as it helps drive home the fact that language, and indeed discourse, is both a product of a people’s interaction and that, most importantly, it is a misconception to assume that there is a specific group of people who are mainly predisposed towards or against graffiti. Thus, the incorporation of some aspects of social constructionism in CDA helps to show that graffiti is socially and culturally constrained such that it warrants to be contextualised from both a spatial and a temporal point of view.
The three major schools of thought in CDA are outlined, namely, the CDA approaches according to Ruth Wodak (discourse historical approach), Norman Fairclough (discourse as social practice) and Teun van Dijk (socio-cognitive approach). These three major approaches, though they are all concerned in studying the discursive realisation of relationships of power, domination and inequality in language, differ according to the specific aspect of language they focus on.

Medium

It emerges that discourse is inextricably linked to medium. Buckingharm (2003) defines medium as something that people make use of when they want to communicate indirectly with other people. The indirectness of the communication stems from the fact that there is no direct face-to-face communication. He goes on to point out that the term medium includes the whole range of modern communication media. This includes such media as the television, radio, photography, newspaper, recorded music, and so on. Buckingham (2003) also goes on to make a distinction between mass media from media that is intended to reach small or specialised audiences. It is the latter type of media that this research focuses on. Graffiti is the type of medium that, by its very nature, is not predisposed to reaching large audiences. Of importance in the issue of medium are the four important aspects of its production, language, representation and audience. Production is concerned with the individuals who are involved in disseminating the information. O’Neill (1997) makes the important observation that genres necessarily embody the values and beliefs of the community or individuals who produce them. Graffiti is a medium that is produced by individuals who will be working alone. Focus is put on the nature of individuals who are involved in graffiti production. It is important to make an analysis of the nature of the individual producers so as to fully appreciate the issues that are raised in graffiti discourse.
Language is a very important aspect in so far as medium is concerned. Language can be approached from different perspectives. The first one, which is taken by Buckingham (2003), has to do with the nature of language that is used. This refers to whether the language is oral or visual. The other perspective is concerned with genre. Genre is defined by Bhatia (1993) and Swales (1990) as a distinctive class of literary composition that is defined by style, form or content. As Chandler (2000) rightly observes, genre refers to a distinctive type of text. Each medium is characterised by its own specific codes and conventions. Conventions will necessarily include the kind of content that is associated with the medium. This necessitates the analysis of how conventions linked with graffiti can also be linked with the kind of topics and issues dealt with in graffiti as a medium.
The notion of representation is an important one in so far as medium issues are concerned. Representation is defined by Hall (1997) as a process that connects meaning and language to culture. This implies that representation or meaning making is not universal. It is specific to particular cultural or social contexts. The way people or individuals represent the world is determined by shared conventions in each and every social milieu. One can extend this argument to media by saying that each medium is involved in the meaning-making process in the sense that particular types of media will necessarily dictate the explicit use of particular types of representations. This can be further extended using the CDA approach by stating that representations are not innocent or neutral. They are inflected ideologically and, therefore, necessarily involve the production and reproduction of power relations through the discursive practices that are used. Graffiti can thus be taken as a medium through which representations are made. Of major interest then is what sort of meanings are represented in graffiti and the extent to which they are involved in the enactment and resistance of relations of power in any given cultural or social setting.
The notion of audiences has to do with the target consumers of the communication carried in any given form of medium. The argument is that producers of any given type of medium communicate messages that are targeted to specific individuals or groups of people. Thus it becomes crucial to establish the targeted audience for any given medium and how the audience is involved in the interactive power negotiation process in any given context.
The notion of medium highlights the centrality of spaces in both the production and reception of the content of graffiti. Processes of production and consumption of discourse are never value-free. Properties of a particular medium can influence the extent to which discourses constructed within it are accepted as appropriate, legitimate or normal. An instance is how graffiti discourses are generally regarded as discourses of disorder by virtue of what Cresswell (1992) has characterised as the crucial where of graffiti. Notions of the significance of the medium in the social construction of reality are reinforced by Seu (2010) who argues that at times the choice can conveniently opt to focus on the acceptability of the medium rather than on the function of the message. It is therefore important to explore how participants’ attitudes towards graffiti writing are shaped or informed by the nature of the media on which the graffiti is inscribed.

Social practices

A better appreciation of CDA is best developed by first expanding on the notion of social practice. Fairclough (1995) defines the term ‘social practice’ as a relatively stabilised form of social activity. It is considered any activity that people carry out for a sustained period of time so that it becomes routine. From the definition of genre discussed above, social practices end up becoming distinct types of social activities which are recognisable from their own peculiar codes and conventions. Fairclough (1995) goes on to point out that every social practice is an articulation of diverse elements which operate within a relatively stable configuration which always includes discourse. Each social practice necessarily includes elements such as activities, subjects and their social relations, objects, time and place, forms of consciousness, values and discourse. Crucially, these elements are dialectically related in the sense that even though they are different elements they are not discrete (Fairclough, 2001). Fairclough (2001) further points out that there is a sense in which each of these elements internalises the others without necessarily being reducible to them. However, it is the element of discourse which this research is specifically concerned with. The important role of discourse in social practices cannot be overemphasised. Discourse, Fairclough (2001) observes, figures in three main ways in the construction of social practices. Firstly, it figures in as part of the social activity within practices. In this sense, the construction of discourse is taken as an important social activity in the production and stabilisation of the social practice. For example, for us to say that there is the practice of graffiti, members have to actively participate in it by the activity of writing on the surfaces. The nature of the writing must also be characterised by consistent conventions which set graffiti apart from other types of writing or discourses.
Second, discourse can also figure in representation. Fairclough (2001) states that social actors within any social practice are actively involved in the representation of other social practices in the process of representing their own. This is a fact that Buckingham (2003) reinforces when he argues that the media does not just provide its producers and consumers with a window to the world. That is to say reality is not just presented but it is actually represented. The process of representation is not, however, a straightforward one. Producers are inevitably presented with choices from which they make their representations. At the end of the day, the discourse that is constructed on any medium is actually the way in which the producers invite their consumers to perceive or experience the world in a specific way or manner. There are, therefore, high chances that representations in any medium are ways in which the audience is made to experience other versions of reality. Significantly, there is no single or absolute version of reality. Reality, as Gergen (1999) rightly observes, is constructed. It is from this construction of multiple versions of reality that one is interested in how the relationship between discursive practices and relationships of power are represented in any medium. In so far as graffiti is concerned, it becomes of paramount importance to analyse the extent to which representations made in graffiti relate to the prevailing status quo in matters to do with power relations. For instance, it can be argued that the nature of social labels used to refer to sexually deviant individuals is inextricably related to the social environment in which the labels are constructed. The labels can thus be taken as either reproducing or resisting hegemonic patriarchal discourses disseminated in educational, health and religious institutions. This necessarily entails the incorporation, in the analysis, of the individuals and/or groups represented in graffiti and the nature of these representations. As Fairclough (1992; 2001) argues social actors are represented differently according to how they are positioned within the practice in question so that at the end representation becomes a process of social construction which determines and shapes social processes and practices.
Third, discourse can figure in ways of being and in the constitution of identities. This leads us to the point that identities are neither static nor predetermined. They are actively constructed in social practices during social interaction. Thus, it is from social interaction that identities are formed, transformed and contested.
Following Fairclough (1995), it emerges that language, being an inextricable part of the social practice of graffiti, is part of society and not external to it. This resonates with Fowler and Hodge (1979) who also dismiss the assertion by most sociolinguists who argue for a relationship ‘between’ language and society. The dominant sociolinguistic view perceives a one-directional relationship between society and linguistic usage (society is the entity that influences language and not vice versa). This assumes that language and society are two separate and independent entities which happen to constantly come into contact. Rather, Fowler and Hodge (1979), as well as Fairclough (1995), establish an internal and dialectic relationship between the two whereby, ‘language is a part of society; linguistic phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort, and social phenomena are, in part, linguistic phenomena’ (Fairclough, 1995: 23).
Linguistic phenomena, on the one hand, are perceived as social in the sense that whenever people use language they do so in ways which are socially constrained and which therefore have social effects. As explained by Fairclough and Wodak (1997), the discursive event is shaped by situations, institutions and social structures and is at the same time shaped by them. Even ‘revolutionary’ or ‘transgressive’ use of language is also considered to be done within parameterised ways. Moreover ‘social phenomena are linguistic in the sense that the language activity which goes on in social contexts is not merely a reflection or expression of social processes and practices’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 23). What we have is a bi-directional relationship in which society influences the kind of language that is used from situation to situation and, at the same time, language also influences the society. This means that social phenomena are constructed and defined by language. One cannot thus speak of a social practice without necessarily involving language. However, Fairclough (2001) rightly observes that the two have a part-whole relationship. That is to say that linguistic phenomena (which is the ‘part’) is just but a strand of social phenomena (which is the whole). One can, therefore, conclude that while discourse is socially constitutive, not all social phenomena are linguistic.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

According to van Dijk (1993), CDA is an analytical research methodology that proposes a study of the relations between discourse, power, dominance and social inequality. Wodak (2001a) concurs with this characterisation by pointing out that CDA is a multifaceted research methodology that is mainly concerned with such important notions as power, ideology, domination and inequality. According to van Dijk (2012: 13), CDA is ‘a specific discourse analytic methodology that examines the role played by language in the construction of power relationships and the reproduction of dominance.’
Two aspects can be isolated for discussion from this characterisation. Firstly, CDA is a multifaceted research methodology (Wodak, 2001a; 2001b). The notion of ‘multifacetedness’ arises from the fact that the framework is influenced by a variety of disciplines. Wodak (1995) observes that CDA can be best characterised as a shared perspective by scholars from various disciplines on conducting linguistic, semiotic as well as discourse research. She goes on to point out that this shared perspective has its roots in the interpretation of the term ‘critical’ when approaching research in the social sciences. As such, scholars from across disciplines have contributed to the development of CDA. Most notable are contributions from disciplines such as linguistics, sociology and social psychology, among others. One can therefore conclude that CDA is ‘an amalgamation of a variety of micro-sociological theories and also theories on society and power’ (Rahimi and Riasati2011). CDA is, therefore, not a homogenous model, nor a school of thought, nor paradigm, but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse analysis. It is not classified as a single method but an approach, which consists of different perspectives and different methods for studying the relationship between the use of language and social context (Wang, 2006).
Secondly, CDA is inseparable from the notions of ‘power’ and ‘dominance.’ Wodak (2001a: 2) contends that the major aim of CDA is to critically investigate the occurrence of social inequality as it is ‘expressed, signalled, legitimated, constituted, and so on, by language use.’
Thus, society itself is structured from a power point view and language is a tool in this process of power organisation. Crucially, the framework appreciates that this social process of the establishment of power relations is not a cut and dried one. There are many things that are involved in the establishment of power dynamics. This includes, among other things, issues such as the enactment, reproduction, legitimisation and resistance of power. Thus, relationships of power are much more than a simple matter of dominant individuals or groups simply asserting their dominance on the dominated. Van Dijk (2012) asserts that notions of power and control are not absolute phenomena. People have more or less power. This ‘partial’ power is then in turn more or less resisted, accepted, condoned, complied with, or legitimated by the dominated. When the dominated does not fully accept the power exerted on them by the dominated this is referred to as ‘counterpower’, (Van Dijk 1993). It is also not always the case that power is exercised in obvious abusive acts and dominant groups; it may be enacted in a myriad of everyday taken-for-granted discourses. This claim, therefore, expands Habermas’ (1977) claim of language as a medium of domination and social force which, from its ideological nature, serves to legitimise relationships of social power. In making this claim, Habermas (1977) suggests that relations of power are only realised only in so far as the establishment of domination on the dominated is concerned.
There is need to dig deeper into these relations of power with the purposes of revealing some relationships of power which may not be as visible to the world as others. As such, Blommaert and Burken (2000: 448) reiterate that the purpose of CDA is to analyse and unravel ‘opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language.’ This means that not all relations of power are explicitly revealed in the process of interactions. What appears to be routine taken-for-granted ways of speaking can actually be used to naturalise existing relations of inequality. As Choulariaki and Fairclough (1999: 4) rightly observe,
it is an important characteristic of the economic, social and cultural changes of late modernity that they exist in discourse as well as processes that are taking place outside discourse, and that the processes that are taking place outside discourse are substantially shaped by these discourse.
This implies that the power of discourse cannot be underestimated. Power relations are not only manifested ‘externally’, outside of discourse. These relations are actually shaped through discourse such that there is need to critically investigate discourse so as to establish the nature of relations constructed and/or construed through language use. As Meyer (2001) observes, approaches to social research, especially that into language, should be construed as a set of both explicit and implicit manifestations of power relations constructed through discourse. This implies that even the most innocuous use of language might be heavily ideologically inflected. Ricento (2003) sums up this argument by stating that the central goal of CDA is then to account for the intricate relationship between discourse, social cognition, power society and culture. This assertion seriously takes into consideration the fact that since speakers of language are always faced with choices in interaction the use of discourse is therefore not neutral. It is a case of representation which may be requiring audiences to perceive reality in particular ways. As a result, Meyer (2001) goes on to state that CDA scholars should endeavour to make explicit these power relations that are more often than not hidden. It is only when this is done that the results from CDA are of practical relevance to society.
In carrying out a critical discourse analysis, it is important to note that there are three ‘levels’ involved. That is, the analyst should ‘separately’ consider the aspects of ‘critical’, ‘discourse’ and ‘analysis.’

Critical

CDA has some of its roots in the Frankfurt school of Critical Theory. Critical Theory, according to Rogers, Malancaruvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hai and O’Garro-Joseph (2005) is mainly concerned with two issues. Firstly, it is a paradigm that attempts to establish as well as confront issues of power, privilege and hegemony. It is generally concerned with the ways in which aspects such as the economy, race, class, gender, religion, education and sexuality interact with issues of power and justice to construct, reproduce and transform social systems. The underlying belief in the Critical Theory paradigm is that people’s thoughts (their ideologies) are mediated by historically constructed power relations. As such facts are considered to be never neutral since they are inherently embedded in their contexts.
Secondly, Critical Theory contends that internalised hegemony is one of the most potent forms of oppression. This may be achieved through both coercion and consent. In trying to discover the true nature of domination through power, critical researchers focus on the many forms through which power may be realised. These include, ideology, material, physical, cultural, psychological and linguistic power. Most crucially, Critical Theory believes that the constitutive nature of discourse is central in the formation of subjectivities and subjugations. This is to say that like CDA, Critical Theory avoids positing a simple deterministic relationship between discourse and the social (Wodak, 1995). In this sense, language is regarded as a product of human interaction aimed at producing, sustaining or resisting particular relationships of inequality. Graffiti writing is therefore regarded as a form of writing in politics where linguistic choices are ideologically inflected to further or curtail the power of particular individuals or groups.
The term ‘critical’ in CDA implies that the analyst is wary of the ‘present social order’ (Billig, 2003: 38). This is often associated with studying prevailing power relations in society. Thus the term ‘critical’ in CDA captures the analyst’s intention to uncover power relationships and expose inequities embedded in society (Rogers, 2004). One way of achieving this is through the establishment of links between linguistic structure and its discursive function in the construction of power relations. It involves an explicit and sustained focus on aspects of grammar, morphology, semantics, and syntax, among others, and relating them to how people use language in different contexts to achieve specific or particular outcomes. As Wodak (1995) notes, this involves the deconstruction of opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in discourse with the purpose of making explicit their underlying meaning. This may also necessarily include an investigation and explication of the networks of form-function relationships that are valued more than others. Another interpretation of ‘critical’ is that CDA seeks to overtly address social problems with the intention of seeking to find their solutions. The solution finding process may be accompanied by social and political action. The overarching belief is that in exposing power relations as reflected through language, the analyst will be automatically disrupting the power relations in the social contexts in which they are found. In sum, ‘critical’ entails an orientation that is aimed at locating social problems and the analysis of how discourse operates and is historically constructed, (Rogers 2004). Rogers goes on to point out that mere analysis of texts for power is not enough. The analyst must work from the analysis of the texts to the social and political context in which the text emerge. Wodak (1995: 204) summarises the goal of CDA as the establishment of connections between ‘social and political engagement’ with ‘a sociologically informed construction of society.’

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
List of figures
List of tables
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the study
1.1 Who writes graffiti in Zimbabwe’s urban areas?
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Aim of the study
1.4 Justification
1.5 Definition of terms
1.6 Scope of the study
1.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Major traditions in graffiti research
2.2 Conclusion
CHAPTER THREE  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Medium
3.2 Social practices
3.3 Critical Discourse Analysis
3.4 Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis
3.5 Social constructionism
3.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.0 Introduction
4.1 The research design
4.2 Research methodology
4.3 Research instruments
4.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE  RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Participant attitudes toward graffiti
5.2 Thematic presentation of graffiti inscriptions
5.3 Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX  DATA ANALYSIS
6.0 Introduction
6.1 The social distribution of attitudes towards graffiti
6.2 Graffiti as urban street protests
6.3 The writing on the stall: Graffiti in educational institutions
6.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER SEVEN  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 Introduction
7.1 Research findings
7.2 Recommendations
7.3 Directions for future research
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT