Constrained Constructivism

Abstract

The recent past has witnessed numerous debates about the differences and respective strengths and weaknesses of different types of discourse analysis (e.g. Angermüller, Maingueneau, Wodak, 2014; Keller, 2012).¹ In particular, the community of critical discourse analysts around Ruth Wodak and Norman Fairclough (e.g. Fairclough, 2003, 1992; Wodak and Meyer, 2009a, b) and discourse analysts affiliated with the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse Analysis (SKAD) such as Reiner Keller (2012, 2011a, b) have launched a prolific number of handbooks discussing the connection between discourse theory, epistemology and various techniques and methods of discourse analysis. In contrast, Ernesto Laclau, the pioneer of PDA, has pleaded himself “happily guilty” of not having developed the methodological foundations of the hegemony-theoretical premises (see Laclau, 2004, p. 324). Apart from a few exceptions like Howarth (2006, 2005), Glynos and Howarth (2008; 2007), and — in the German context — more recently Glasze (2007), Marttila (2013a, 2015b) and Nonhoff (2007), methodologization of PDA still awaits to be accomplished. With this in mind, let us begin with the some of the concepts that relate to the process of methodologization.