Who invented the concept of Interdiskursanalyse?
Jürgen Link (He is an outspoken political activist situated on the left of the spectrum: Thus the aim of his work is political)
According to Interdiskursanalyse: What is the base for the Division of discourses?
The specialization of the labour force: “Auf der Basis der für die Moderne fundamentalen Dialektik der Arbeitsteilung tendieren die diskursiven Formationen … zu immanenter Spezialisierung, zur spezifischen und irreduktibel besonderen Konstituierung ihrer Gegenstände, zu eigenem Lexikon und zu eigener Grammatik….”
Thus the specialized discourses drift further and further apart.
What is the central question asked by the Interdiskursanalyse?
Despite the drifiting apart of tthe specialized discourses, How and why do people still understand each other at times?
What is the answer to the central question posed by the Interdiskursanalyse?
People can still understand each other, “weil es nicht bloß Spezialdiskurse, sondern - mit re-integrativer Funktion - auch interdiskursive Sprachspiele gibt.”
How does the Interdiskurs work?
- Symbols we are all acquainted with and stories we all know help us communicate across the boundaries of the specialized discourses.
- Thus, specialized discourses can be translated into the Interdiscourse using such collective metaphors/symbols.
What are the implications if we assume the Interdiskursanalyse?
- The Intterdiskurs provides the terms in which social, cultural and political conflicts are negotiated. (To a degree the symbols provided by the Interdiskurs determine the outcome of the communication)
- The Interdiskurs is highly characteristic of the respective cultures.
- Changes in Culture can be observed in the changes of collecttive symbols.
What are the questions which remain to be answered by the Interdiskursanalyse?
- Which symbols become part of the Interdiskurs? For what reasons?
- Do we really observe culture in Interdiskursanalyse or is this just a socio-linguistic theory?
How and why do symbols become collective symbols?
Where certain specialized discourses get repeated regularly in metaphorical use and are applicable to both sides of a party they become part of the Interdiscourse
What are the Rules of how and why symbols become collective symbols?
- A symbol has to be usable in contemporary conflicts (or) It has to provide “Discoursive Positions”.
- Elements of the Interdiscourse usually come from specialised discourses, that are particularly relevant at the respective historical point in time. Elements of the Interdiscourse tend to stay relevant for a certain time after the cultural event promoting them passed.
Why does the Interdiskursanalyse carry Marxist Heritage?
Because in their eyes the cultural discourse is shaped by the relevance of a certain technology.
According to Interdiskursanalyse, what is the function of literature?
“Literature is the “Research-Centre and Testing-Ground for potential new collective symbols”. Thus, certain individuals have a higher influence on which symbols become part of the Interdiskurs than others. (Similar to German Idealism)
Why did the “Use of complex systtems as living organisms” become a collective symbol?
- Itt is highly relevant in the contemporary social and technological context.
- Itt provides discursive positions, i.e. allows expression of relevant cultural conflicts.
Whatt are the advantages of Interdiskursanalyse?
- It has a clear methodology (It is easy to comprehend)
- It lays bare some of the basic conceptual assumptions of cultures.
- It displays a plausible view of Literature
- It overcomes Thick Description’s focus on immediately visible phenomena
What are the disadvantages of Interdiskursanalyse?
- Too strong a focus on language
- Exactt mode of establiisshment of “Collective Symbols” remains unclear
- Consequently, no systematic concept of the mental processes that underlie a given culture.
