Disourse (was (no subject)

[Susan Elaine Antlitz]

I'm not sure who will or will not share my understanding of discourse, but
as usual, my definition tends to be broad in scope (That's me, always see
how things are related and how they interact.)

I did want to clarify how I see "psychological perceptions" functioning as
a part of discourse. This is, on my part, largely theoretical speculation,
but maybe this can be an invitation for anyone more knowledgeable about
psychology to jump in.  Rather than being directly accessible within a
discourse community, I see these internal (psychological) reactions of
discourse members dealing more with the interface between the individual
and the public components of communication.  Other participants in a
discourse (even a discourse envisioned as "culture") may never have direct
access to the psychological perceptions of those around them; yet, these
perceptions eventually will have an influence the tone and type of a
response, and by implication, will also influence the more collective
manifestation of the discourse as it in turn affects other individuals
exposed to the discourse.

But is discourse just the sum of the "language" we all operate within, or
is it intrinsically dialogic?  Then again, don't we "dialogue" with our own
societies, sub-societies, and cultures just by participating in them-  Do
our actions count as "responses" that either challenge or confirm this
type of "life discourse?"

Maybe I am attempting to be too broad and inclusive here, but I guess it
might spark some good thoughts.

 Susan


On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, David Samuels wrote:

> Hmm.  Certainly discourse would include all socially mediated semiotic
> systems, the "publicly accessible sign vehicles" that Urban talks about.
> Whether this equates with "culture" is I think an open question.  And while
> social customs may be in a sense accessible through these signs, its not
> entirely clear that psychological perceptions are.  And I think one of the
> interesting issues about discourse, in the sense that it exists at the
> nexus of practice and ideology, is the entent to which, not to mention how,
> these things might or might not be shared.  Social circulation of "signs"
> and sharing of "meanings" might be very different things.
>