I will focus largely on Fairclough's ideas and methods here.
While Gee offers some
interesting insights into how CDA work may unfold,
To sum the issue up succinctly, critical discourse analysis assumes that whenever individuals and/or institutions engage in dialogues (which may or may not include spoken and/or written language), the power dynamics that exist between these parties will inevitably be exposed, and can then be located in the evidence produced over the course of a given dialogue. Such dialogues can unfold via direct personal contact, or they may play out over a longer period, such as when a government policymaking group reuses the same discourses in its publications.
More than this, however, CDA emphasizes dialogue as a tool by which to sustain such power dynamics, or, with a bit of skill, to alter them. The key here is that these power relationships must continually be re-established via language
While there are many different approaches to CDA, I will focus here on the three- dimensional model developed by Fairclough, and used extensively by Stevenson (Fairclough, 1992; Stevenson, 2001; and Stevenson, 2009). As Fairclough notes (as cited by Stevenson, 2009), "any discursive 'event' (i.e. any instance of discourse) is seen as being simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice" (Fairclough, 1994, p. 4). Analysis of a given text, then, should proceed along the dimensions of "text, discourse practice, and social practice" (Stevenson, 2009, p. 5). Interestingly, Stevenson notes that this methodology is useful to study texts from a historical perspective: [A]s a textually oriented model, the centrality of the text as a concrete instance of wider discursive and social practices is emphasized. In this way public policies, in their textual form, can be read as social and cultural artefacts which provide us with important clues as to the underlying historical conditions of their production (Stevenson, 2001, p. 53). While I will probably not use public policy documents in my own research, I believe that this approach remains valid for the study of other historical texts, from workplace memos and status reports to operating manuals and advertising materials. Given the similarities between this kind of approach and research methods in postmodern history, I believe that TODA is a solid foundation for any type of historical research project. As to what TODA brings to the table in terms of analytical tools, Fairclough notes, quite succinctly, that research focused on discourse and power will uncover the "'common-sense' assumptions which are implicit in the conventions according to which people interact linguistically, and of which people are generally not consciously aware" (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2). To rephrase this with a bit more sophistication, Fairclough connects discourse to ideology. It is worthwhile citing him at length here: Ideologies are closely linked to power, because the nature of the ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions, and so the nature of those conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the conventions; and because they are a means of legitimizing existing social relations and differences of power, simply through the recurrence of ordinary, familiar ways of behaving which take these relations and power differences for granted (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2). Language is a powerful tool, then, by which ideologies may be sustained and extended. It can be used to construct narratives, as well as the social, political, and economic identities that feature in such narratives. In order to resist these methods, according to Fairclough, we have to recognize them for what they are: Resistance and change are not only possible but continuously happening. But the effectiveness of resistance and the realization of change depend on: people developing a critical consciousness of domination and its modalities, rather than just experiencing them (Fairclough, 2001, p. 3). A call for political action is often an end goal of CDA work, particularly when powerful institutions and the hegemonic discourses they produce are under consideration. With respect to my research, the situation is somewhat complicated. Instead of advocating for political change, my research will likely delineate new perspectives on gaming and game programming that I feel are more empowering to users and players. I will discuss this issue in more detail later on. I believe, then, that a CDA approach would be exceedingly useful for my research topic: the history and early evolution of digital computing technologies from a gaming perspective, with a specific focus on interactivity and user agency across different platforms. Most of my research would focus on the work of a diversity of academic, governmental, and military institutions, as well as some of the earliest private computer firms such as Digital Equipment Corporation (which were still connected quite closely to the public sector). Offsetting such institutional power were the many engineers, technicians and programmers that actually built and operated the mainframe and minicomputers of the era. An intriguing aspect of this history lies in the fact that computing technologies advanced at a tremendously rapid pace, due in large part to the inventions of the transistor, and then the integrated circuit. With the emergence of the personal computer as a consumer product, moreover, standardization became a serious concern. This meant that individuals, or small groups of people, could have an outsized influence on the evolution of computer hardware and software. Even something as seemingly frivolous as the game Spacewar could spread quickly across institutional boundaries both through networks like APRANET and via researchers and engineers who migrated from one campus or workplace to another. This small meta-community exercised a tremendous amount of power. Another reason why I would like to employ CDA is the fact that, at the moment, there exists only a modest amount of critical history on this period. The role of the military in the early history of computing has been looked at (see Leslie, 1993), but the bias towards this admittedly compelling topic means that other aspects of this history have been neglected. There are also some written accounts of specific computers and/or technologies, but these largely take the form of "love letters", in the sense that critical appraisal is largely lacking (see, for example, Redmond & Smith, 1990; and Redmond & Smith, 2000). These works are still quite useful, as is the official documentation produced by relevant institutions, as well as the first-hand accounts of certain events that can be found in a variety of places. But all these sources must be treated with caution. I believe, then, that a CDA approach will allow me to adopt the critical perspective necessary for working with these sources. A less overtly strategic reason for using CDA is the fact that it can help elucidate the major themes that emerge when these sources are studied individually and as a whole, to follow Fairclough's model. In particular, the theme of control, I believe, plays a large role in shaping the social, political, and cultural consequences of the rise of digital computing. This theme often shows up in unlikely places. To cite one example, the development of time-sharing network computing played a major role in expanding access to corporate and campus computer systems. By giving multiple users the power to interact with a central computer via terminal stations, individuals could engage in real-time "conversations" (a term used often at the time) with computers, typing in commands and having them carried out almost immediately. A wide variety of games from interactive fiction to business simulations emerged as a consequence of this "immediate mode" interactivity. This early step towards user-centric "conversational computing" resulted in a loss of control with respect to how computers were used; games, certainly, were not meant to be a priority. Yet by studying the games and the texts related to such games that emerged in this period, we may track the evolution of a counter-discourse in which user control over computing systems was increasingly important. In terms of potential obstacles, I foresee two challenges in particular that I will explain here. The first is the fact that the agency needed to create and sustain discourse is typically distributed across a diversity of individuals and organizations, and can only be understood on those terms. There are, for example, many dissertations written by students who were involved in larger computer engineering projects, but, as standalone texts, do not possess sufficient agency to shape discourse on their own. When considered alongside the vast quantities of documentation related to the same projects, however, their role in larger discursive strategies becomes much clearer. I borrow here from Castells' ideas about agency networks. As he explains it, networks of individuals and organizations often have to work in tandem to exercise agency (Castells, 2011). The second issue related to the fact that many of these people and groups that were shaping discursive strategies were not necessarily intending to gain hegemonic power over all actors working within the same network of influences. It is on this point, I believe, that Dyer- Witheford and de Peuter stumble somehow in Games of Empire. To borrow from one of their case studies, the Grand Theft Auto series does incorporate neoliberal values such as individuality and capitalist consumption, whether or not this was intended to promote such values is unclear (Dyer-Witherford and de Peuter, 2009). Given the satirical ethos that the series is known for, it it seems likely that Rockstar Games did not intend for their work to celebrate such values. Instead of trying to determine intention, however, I believe that it is better set the issue aside, at least to a certain degree. Here I will borrow from actor-network theory a partial ambivalence with respect to motives. As Latour puts it: Uncertainty should remain uncertain throughout because we dont want to rush into saying that actors may not know what they are doing, but that we, the social scientists, know that there exists a social force "making them do" things unwittingly (Latour, 1996, p.47).
Von Neumann Microsoft BASIC made BASIC a standard
is the fact that individuals and small groups of individuals
Not much has been done outside "love letters"
Castells'
Redmond, K. C., & Smith, T. M. (1990). Project Whirlwind: the history of a pioneer computer. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Redmond, K. C., & Smith, T. M. (2000). From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D story of the SAGE air defense computer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.