A new tool.
We all too often move away from using the more complex ideas
in classes. We don’t think they can handle the ideas. This year I hope to
introduce complex concepts to younger students in the classroom. One of these
will be an old favourite of mine; Critical Discourse Analysis. This is not so
much a concept as a way of approaching language and scholarship. But if we as
teachers are trying to give tools to the students, this isn’t a bad one to have
in the box. CDA is a method of looking critically at the interplay between two
speakers or a writer and a reader. The analysis can deal just with the language
or can go even further and look at the context and the authors themselves. It
is interplay between the skills of literary and historical analysis. For those
of you who would like a brief introduction I recommend ‘Language and Power’ by
Norman Fairclough or for themore adventurous anything by Ruth Wodak will be eye
opening.
The text below is from the motion picture Kingdom of Heaven.
I thought something easy and recognisable may highlight how this can be used. The
dialogue concerns the discussions amongst Christians and whether they should
wage war on the Saracen army. The knights of Tiberius stand opposed to war
while the Templars of Guy de Lusignan are for the conflict.
Tiberius – Guy De
Lusigan and Reynald De Chatillon with the Templars have attacked a Saracen
Caravan.
(Cries of liars from the Templars assembled.)
Unknown – (loud)
Silence!
Guy De Lusignan –
It was no caravan, it was an army headed to Bethlehem to desecrate the
birthplace of our Lord
Tiberias - Reynald,
with the Templars, has broken the King’s pledge of peace. Sala-ha-din will come
into this kingdom…
Guy de L –
Tiberius knows more than a Christian should about Sala-ha-din’s intentions.
Pause- both men glare
at each other.
Tiberius –
(quietly to Guy’s face) And I would rather live with men, than kill them –
pause – is certainly why you are alive.
Guy de L – That
sort of Christianity has its uses (smiling) I suppose.
Tiberius – We
must not go to war with Sala-ha-din – (pause) – we do not want it – (pause) –
and we may not win it.
Priest – (loud)
Blasphemy!
All Templars –
Blasphemy.
Priest – An army
of Jesus Christ which bears his holy cross cannot be beaten, (pause) does
Tiberius suggest it could be? There must be war! God Wills it!
All Templars –
God Wills it!
The representation of crusade in this text is implicit and
the determination of how the term is conceptualised will rely upon an
examination of the relationship between the two sides of the discourse from
characters who are engaged actively on crusade. The script writer produces two
sides to illuminate a debate about the conflict in general. The Templars of Guy
de Lusignan are positioned by the language as zealots and uncomplicated ones at
that. To the charge of attacking a Caravan, the writer has Guy declare that it
was not, and furthermore was in fact an army. The difference in size and
function of Caravan and Army makes the lie a bold lie (even more bold is the
charge of attacking Bethlehem) and the writer thus gives the audience the
impression that Guy de Lusignan is a liar and a blatant one. Additionally the
scene before this shows Guy attacking the Caravan, positioning him as a
murderer as well as a liar. The Templar priest, when it is suggested that the
Christians may not win a war with the Saracens answers with the charge of
‘Blasphemy’. This immediate response to a reasoned and impassioned declaration
positions the Templars as having more faith than sense which develops into the
familiar crusading cry of ‘God wills it’. This is all deliberate positioning by
the text producer as one half of an argument between pragmatism and religious
zealotry.
The text producer shows the pragmatism of Tiberius through
the development of his speech. The interruptions he suffers are breezed over
and he attempts to finish what he is saying. It is in fact the impetuous nature
of the interruptions that position Tiberius as the voice of reason, rather than
his arguments. His response to Guy’ ‘I would rather live with men than kill
them’ does enhance his position as the voice of reason. The duality of the
clause indicating that if he were willing to live with them, Guy is willing to
kill them.
The script writer is attempting to show the duality, and the
implicit flaw in the idea of crusade through the relationship between Tiberius
and Guy. By making both sides so monochromatic in their love of or detestation
of war he is making the larger point about the futility of fundamentalism and
is through this perhaps criticising the concept of crusade itself.
The expressive value of the material emphasises this
critique. The nature of the discourse is that the reasoned is outweighed by the
loud yelling of the Templars who together in unison cry ‘Blasphemy’ or ‘God
wills it’. The nature of the vocabulary is religious and so the inference is
that religion is not reasoned in this case, or that it is misused, the way in
which all the Templars call together indicates an unthinking response. So
religion is shown to be both bellicose and unthinking in the same passage. The
immediacy and determinism of the religious language is best shown at the end of
the passage where the priest calls that there ‘must’ be war. The imperative
used here again showing a lack of reason or willing to listen to arguments.
I hope this shows a way of approaching discourse in a fun
way. The method or philosophy should be treated like a magnifying glass that
brings into focus the ideas, and issues that exist in the peripheral vision of
most students but intrigue them none the less. Simply explained, there is no
reason why students of literature or history should not begin with this quite young.
It is more complex, of course, than I am making it seem here, however at its
heart is a simple concept that can be grasped by those with an intellectual
curiosity very quickly indeed.
Ideas are fun, and we should all have fun with them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment