Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 13:3 (2014) ► pp.473–489

Village as a discursive space

The political study of a non-political community

| University of Warwick |
Discourse analysis in both its theory and practice is traditionally concerned with politics. The sphere of the non-political rarely attracts attention of the researchers. It appears to be invisible to discourse theorists and unprivileged in empirical studies of discourse. This article aims at filling this gap. With the example of a Russian village it dwells on the discursive organisation of rural communities whose radically “personalised” world resists traditional approaches to political logic and suggests different modes of relations, agency, and power.
Keywords: village, rural communities, Russia, discourse analysis, and non-political
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Politics and the studies in rural worlds
  • 3.Discourse and organisation of the social
  • 4.Discursive structure in the world of proper nouns
  • 5.Power in the world of proper nouns and “the weapon of the weak”
  • 6.Instead of conclusion: Non-political decision in the undecidable terrain
  • References
Published online: 22 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.3.05gol
References (42)
References
Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” Speech Genres, and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. 60–102.Google Scholar
Carpentier, Nico, and Benjamin De Cleen. 2007. “Bringing Discourse Theory into Media Studies: The Applicability of Discourse Theoretical Analysis (DTA) for the Study of Media Practices and Discourses.” Journal of Language and Politics 6 (2): 265–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaianov, Alexander. 1989. Krestianksoe khoziaistvo. Izbrannye trudy. Moscow: Ekonomika.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fadeeva, Olga. Sposoby adaptatsii sel’skikh semei k izmeneniiam ekonomicheskoi sredy (po rezul’tatam biudzhetnykh obsledovanii na Kubani I Povolzh’e). Teodor Shanin, ­Viktor Danilov, and Alexander Nikulin (eds). 2002. Refleksivnoe krest’ianovedenie: desiatiletie issledovanii sel’skoi Rossii. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 161–215.Google Scholar
Foucalt, Michael. 1984. “The Order of Discourse.” In Language and Politics, ed. by Michael J. Shapiro, 108–138. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michael. 1994. The Order of Things: The Archaeology of Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glazychev, Viacheslav. 1995. “Slobodizatsiia strany Gardariki.” Inoe: Khresmotatiia novogo rossiiskogo samosoznaniia. No.11. Moscow: Znanie. 63–88.Google Scholar
Grant, Steven A. 1976. “Obshchina and Mir.” Slavic Review 35 (4): 636–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gromyko, Marina. 1991. Mir russkoi derevni. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia.Google Scholar
Howarth, David. 2000. Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howarth, David, and Jacob Torfing (eds). 2005. Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy, and Governance. Basingstoke: Pallgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howarth, David, and Yannis Stavrakakis. 2000. “Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis.” In Discourse Theory and Poltical Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, ed. by David Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, 1–24. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Iarov, Sergei. 1999. Kresianin kak politik. Krestianstvo Severo-Zapada Rossii v 1918–1919 gg.: politicheskoe myshlenie i massovyi protest. SPb: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khagurov, Aitech. 2002. Russkii khutor (opyt etnosotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia sel’skoi glubinki). Krasnodar: KGAU.Google Scholar
Kondratenko, Нikolai. 2000. Khodil kazak v Kreml’. Razmyshleniia o proshlom i budushchem gubernatora Krasnodarskogo kraia. Krasnodar: Sovetskaia Kuban’.Google Scholar
Kostylev, Anton. 2003. “Rusalochii samogon.” Gazeta.ru. Accessed January 16, 2012. [URL].Google Scholar
Kozlova, Natalia. 1996. Gorizonty povsednevnosti sovetskoi epokhi. Golosa iz khora. Moscow: IF RAN.Google Scholar
Koznova, Irina. 2000. XX vek v sotsial’noi pamiati rossiiskogo krest’ianstva. Moscow: IF RAN.Google Scholar
Krest’ianovedenie: Teoriia. Istoriia. Sovremennost’. 1997–1999. Moscow: Aspekt-press.Google Scholar
Kushner, Pavel. 1958. Selo Viriatino v proshlom i nastoiashchem (Trudy Instituta etnografii). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Lillian Zac. 1984. “Minding the Gap: The Subject of Politics.” In The Making of Political Identities, ed. by Ernesto Laclau. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1991. “Impossibility of Society.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 15 (1–2 & 3): 24–27.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony.” In Deconstruction and Pragmatism, ed. by Chantal Mouffe, 47–68. London: Verso.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
.1999. “Constructing Universality.” In Hegemony, Contingency, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, ed. by Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Zizek, 281–307. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Levykin, I. (ed). 1970. Kollektiv kolkhoznikov. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskoe issledovanie. Moscow: Mysl’.Google Scholar
Lotman, Yurii. 1977. “Primary and Secondary Communication Modeling Systems.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology, ed. by Daniel P. Lucid, 95–98. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lotman, Yuri, and Boris Uspenskii. 2001. “Mif – Imia – Kul’tura. Yurii Lotman.” Semiosfera. SPb: Iskusstvo – SPb. 525–543.Google Scholar
Norval, Aletta, and Yannis Stavrakakis (eds). 2000. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: ­Identities, Hegemonies, and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Norval, Aletta. 2004. “Hegemony After Deconstruction: The Consequences of Undecidability.” Journal of Political Ideologies 9 (2): 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Theorising Hegemony: Between Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis.” In Radical Democracy. Politics Between Abundance and Lack, ed. by Lars Tønder and Lasse Thomassen, 86–102. Manchester: Manchester University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redfield, Robert. 1973. The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, James. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasants Resistance. New Haven: Yale Unviersity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanin, Teodor (ed). 1992. Velikii neznakomets. Krestiane i fermery v sovremennom mire. ­Moscow: Progress-Akademiia.Google Scholar
Shanin, Teodor, Viktor Danilov, and Alexander Nikulin (eds). 2002. Refleksivnoe krest’ianovedenie: desiatiletie issledovanii sel’skoi Rossii. Moscow: ROSSPEN.Google Scholar
Shanin, Teodor. 1972. The Awkward Class. Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910–1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torfing, Jacob. 1999. The New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe, Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vinogradskii, Valerii. 1999. ““Orudiia slabykh”: neformal’naia ekonomika krest’ianskikh domokhoziaistv.” Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal. 3/41: 36–48.Google Scholar
Wolf, Eric. 1971. Peasants Wars of the Twentieth Century. London: Faber and Faber. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Romashko, Tatiana Vladimirovna & Olga Gurova
2022. Poststructuralist Discourse Theory and its Methods of Analysis of Sociocultural Reality. Социодинамика :10 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.