POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2), 98–104

Research and Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis in Political
Studies: An Illustrative Analysis of the
‘Empowerment’ Agenda ponl_1372 98..104

Michael Farrelly
Open University

In the first sections of this article I give a simple and general account of critical discourse analysis
(CDA) and how it might contribute to the theoretical and methodological repertoire of political
studies through its discourse-dialectical theory of how discourse figures as an aspect of social
practices without reducing those practices to discourse. In the final section I give a short illustrative
example of how a CDA approach to detailed textual analysis might also be applied to specific texts
(or groups of texts) in the political arena: in the example I take the press release in which the
national UK government heralded its recent ‘empowerment’ White Paper, ‘Communities in
Control’.

Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) brings with it both a general theory of how
discourse figures as an aspect of social practice and analytical concepts for analysing
discourse on multiple scales ranging from the networking of social practices to the
detailed analysis of particular texts. In this article I give a simple account of CDA
and of how it might contribute to the theoretical and methodological repertoire of
political studies through its discourse-dialectical theory of how discourse figures as
an aspect of social practices without reducing those practices to discourse. In doing
so, I give a basic outline of the version of CDA that I have used in critiquing
attempts at improving local democracy (Farrelly, 2008). I go on to give an illustra-
tion of how a CDA approach to detailed textual analysis might also be applied to
specific texts (or groups of texts) in the political arena: in the example I take the
press release in which the national UK government heralded its recent ‘empower-
ment’ White Paper, ‘Communities in Control’. I suggest that CDA might usefully
contribute to, and itself be developed by being taken up more widely in, the
theoretical and methodological repertoire of political studies.
The case for CDA is made in response to calls for, and debate over, more systematic
methods of ‘interpretation’ in political studies (Bevir and Rhodes, 2004; Dowding,
2004; Finlayson, 2004; Hay, 2004). The approach I take draws primarily on the
work of Norman Fairclough (2003 and 2006) and his discourse-dialectical, critical
realist oriented approach to CDA (see Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer, 2002; Sayer,
2000); an approach that is therefore most likely to be compatible with critical realist

© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association

CDA IN POLITICAL STUDIES 99

oriented approaches to political analysis. However, different approaches have been

developed within CDA with different theoretical bases, and the different approaches
are likely to be more or less compatible with different theoretical perspectives
towards political studies (Wodak, 2009; Wodak and Meyer, 2001).

The concept of discourse in CDA

CDA has developed, and continues to develop, as a way of analysing discourse as an
aspect of social practices: a contribution that CDA can make to political studies is
that it offers a general theoretical perspective on discourse which recognises the
constitutive potential of discourse within and across social practices without reduc-
ing social practices to their discursive aspect. The concept of discourse as it is used
in CDA is an aid to understanding the way we, as societies, tend both to organise
and to be organised by our use of language. Aspects of discourse can become
relatively conventionalised in social practices, and therefore, because they are
conventional ways of using language, their implications can become opaque to
people using them, and to those studying them. Discourse understood in this way
should therefore be an important locus of analysis in political studies.

The analysis of discourse can never be complete. Discourse structures and enables
much of our social and political practice. But because it is part of the open system
that is our social and political world we can never completely or fully analyse it. The
constitutive effects of discourse can be seen from the structuring of international
and intergovernmental relations (imagine how such relations would differ if we did
not have a discourse that routinely assumed the existence of nation states as distinct
but related political entities; or if we did not have discursive forms, such as summits,
treaties, passports, etc.) to the detail of individual utterances (think of the different
world-views that could be conveyed through the phrases ‘free trade’ and ‘fair
trade’). With such a vast range of potential objects of analysis, the practicalities of
analysis mean that decisions need to be made over where any particular analysis is
pitched. CDA attempts to be problem orientated and in political studies this would
mean that analysis should be pitched at where political theory (or a hunch that is
later theorised) suggests a problem lies. CDA calls for an interdisciplinary approach
and looks to other approaches in political studies and to political theory for specific
theories of the political with which to combine its general dialectical theory of
discourse in social practices and within which to frame its analytical findings.

Key analytical concepts in CDA

The variety of CDA that I use suggests that discourse can be seen at the level of
social practices as forming orders of discourse – the discursive aspect of the way
different social practices are ‘networked together’ (Fairclough, 2003, p. 24). Within
orders of discourse one can distinguish three aspects on which to focus analysis:
genres (ways of acting) and the ‘chains’ that these may regularly form; styles (ways
of being); and discourses (ways of representing), though in conjunction with
cultural political economy (see below) discourses may also be seen as ‘imaginary’
objects of governance. An analysis of change over time in political studies might

© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association

POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)
100 MICHAEL FARRELLY

draw on the way CDA sees the interaction of the three (Fairclough, 2003, p. 29) –
discourses can become enacted in genres (a discourse that saw elections as being
like a personality contest might become enacted through making election manifes-
tos take on features of a promotional brochure, for example) or inculcated as styles
(a discourse that saw formality in politics as an electoral problem might be incul-
cated as an informality in the personal style of politicians, for example). Conversely,
a propensity towards certain genres and styles in a political arena might militate
against certain discourses (or ways of seeing the world) being taken up in that
particular arena.
These analytical categories open up for critical examination important aspects of
practice that might otherwise be taken for granted. The first is genre (Fairclough,
2003, pp. 65–86). Genres are the forms of action that language takes when one is
speaking or writing. So ‘the press release’ can be seen as a genre – it has a
recognisable form that authors more or less follow in order for their press release to
fit in with what is expected of it, and for it to have a chance of doing the job that
they intend. Through the production, distribution and consumption of the ‘empow-
erment’ White Paper press release a relation between the government, news outlets
and end readers is enacted which relies on the utilisation of both the discursive and
the extra-discursive resources to which each has access.
Through CDA one might be directed to ask what kinds of genre make up the action
of political arenas, how do these network different practices together and, impor-
tantly, how do they enable or restrict political action, for whom and in what way?
A press release enacts the networking of the practices of government with those of
press reporting – this networking is enabled through the regular chaining of genres
such as press releases and news reports. If we see a press release as ‘action’ we can
ask who is doing what to whom and under what circumstances? CDA can offer a
general account of how genres regularly form chains in which different practices are
networked together, but would look to media studies and political theory in order
to explore more fully the implications for a political system.
The second major analytical focus of CDA is ‘style’ (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 159–163).
Style is the way of being that speaking or writing embodies. So one can be
authoritative or humble, arrogant or reticent and so on in the way one speaks or
writes. One can also be ‘prime ministerial’ and when one is not, or when one
embodies characteristics that people do not like, then criticism may well follow. In
the press release we might see both expressions of authority as well as the impli-
cation that government must be seen to explain its actions.
The third key analytical concept in CDA is that of discourses (Fairclough, 2003,
pp. 123–133) – the way in which a part of the world is represented, or imagined,
when one speaks or writes. The heading of the press release, for example, repre-
sents the White Paper that it heralds thus: ‘White Paper delivers power shift to local
people’ – we know that a White Paper cannot in itself deliver power, for a White
Paper is a statement of intended policy. Although it might play a part in giving over
power, it is not in itself the enactment of that power. Representing the White Paper
in this way glosses over the nature of power and the multitude of other actions that
would be required for ‘local’ people to enact their ‘power’. CDA opens up for
question how far this misconstrual (or, more charitably, hyperbole) contributes to
© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)
CDA IN POLITICAL STUDIES 101

government opening itself up to democratic power or how far it acts as a barrier to

such democratic power – do (enough) people really believe (strongly enough) that
power has been delivered to ‘local people’ and that more need not be done? Here,
an engagement with democratic theory would be most useful – with CDA contrib-
uting detailed analysis of actual texts that might well pose new questions for
democratic theory to address.

Cultural political economy and CDA

The outline of discourse-dialectical critical realist oriented CDA given above indi-
cates the general potential for this kind of CDA in political studies but, as I have also
been suggesting, specific political problems need more specific political theory. The
analysis of the construction of liberal democracy (my own overarching research
concern) fits most congruently with cultural political economy (CPE) (Fairclough,
2006; Jessop, 2004; Jessop and Sum, 2001) and its assertion that semiotic moments
of governance construct an ‘imaginary’ that becomes both an object of, and con-
dition for, governance. Real economies, for example, would be seen as distinct from
and beyond the abilities of governments to calculate and govern because of their
complexity. Instead, imaginaries of economies are constructed discursively, and it is
the content of these imaginaries that become the object of governance (with the
implicit question: what are the effects of governing economic and political imagi-
naries for the real political economy?). This orientation puts semiosis, culture and,
in particular, discourses at the heart of the study of political economy. CPE brings
together critical political economy with CDA as a theory and method for analysing
the discursive elements of political economy. This level of dialogue is one very
strong example of how existing approaches to political studies can develop into
something larger than the sum of their parts and one that might be a model for
other approaches to political studies to use in incorporating CDA.

Analysis of the ‘power shift to local people’

In this section I give an illustration of a detailed analysis of the press release in
which the national UK government heralded its recent ‘empowerment’ White
Paper, ‘Communities in Control’ – I stress that space limits this analysis to posing
questions over which CDA might engage with other approaches to political studies
(for a more detailed and fully argued analysis see Farrelly, forthcoming). Taking the
concept of ‘imaginaries’ from CPE we might say that the press release potentially
contributes to the construction of an imaginary object of governance which I will
call ‘power shift to local people’ and which I take from the headline of the press
release. Through the press release, and other discursive moments, the national
government could be seen as constructing this imaginary which it will then govern
in lieu of the too complex actual enactment and embodiment of power that it
cannot hope fully to calculate and govern. A key element in constructing an
imaginary object of governance is that the inherent contradictions are not made too
apparent. Through CDA, though, we can examine the construction of the imagi-
nary as presented in the press release and uncover both the construction of the
imaginary and the way that contradictions are hidden. In looking for discourses or
imaginaries, Fairclough (2003, pp. 134–155) suggests that a focus on generalisation
© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)
102 MICHAEL FARRELLY

over, and abstraction from, concrete events can be a fruitful point of analysis and
that (among other things) the presence or absence of forms of activity, persons (or
social actors) and social relations can be distinguished through analysis. In the first
example:

Giving local people a direct say on how budgets are spent

We want every area of the country to have a ‘community kitty’ scheme – a pot
of money that local people can decide how to spend. Local people should have a
say in setting priorities for local budgets – for example if they want to see more
community wardens or better street lighting. Government Departments are also
committed to citizens having a bigger say over youth and community safety
spending’ (Communities and Local Government, 2008).
Although the announcement is of a ‘power shift to local people’ the horizon of
action for this power shift, as seen in this example, is limited. Although it is
conceivable that ‘a power shift to local people’ might entail massive restructuring of
politico-economic relations, the imaginary of ‘power’ seen here extends only so far
as a ‘bigger say’ (notably, not control) over budgets, and the horizon of this say over
‘budgets’ extends only so far as a ‘community kitty’ and a say in setting ‘priorities’
for local budgets, which are in turn limited in this example to ‘community
wardens’, ‘street lighting’ and ‘youth and community safety’. The imaginary of a
‘power shift to local people’ glosses over this limited ambition through excluding
any explicit reference to these limits.
There is, however, an ambiguity in the imaginary of ‘power shift’ which arises from
the generalised reference to ‘local people’. From one point of view ‘local people’
already make the kind of decisions to which this example refers – the elected
councillors take decisions and they tend to be ‘local people’; local parties select
candidates for election and these tend to be local people; the electorate tends to be
local. What the example does not do is make an explicit distinction between the
local state and the holders of democratic potential who are beyond the state – the
people. One reading of this ambiguity is that the authors of the imaginary are
attempting to disguise the fact that power shift to local people would also mean
power shift from councillors, many of whom will belong to the same political party
as the national government. Another reading might be that a feature of the
discourse that helps to construct liberal democracy is that it excludes the democratic
subject as an active and imminent presence in democracy. CDA opens up and
sharpens this line of inquiry by being able to point to particular instances of
ambiguity and tension and the ways in which these tensions are disguised in
particular concrete examples.
In the following extract from the press release the imaginary object of governance
– ‘power shift to local people’ – ‘democracy’ as a concept is present and indeed is its
predominant theme:

Promoting democracy
A new duty will be placed on local authorities to promote democracy. Local leaders
will be expected to do more to help residents understand how the democratic
process works and how they can get involved. Residents can expect to see
© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)
CDA IN POLITICAL STUDIES 103

information campaigns and town halls being opened up to councillors to hold

surgeries. New ‘civic champions’ – council staff or former councillors who will go
out into the community and work with residents and community groups to
increase understanding about how they can raise awareness about civic roles
they can take up – whether that’s volunteering, standing as a governor, a
councillor or becoming a magistrate’ (Communities and Local Government,
2008, emphasis in original).
CDA points the analysis towards examination of who does what to whom and
under what circumstances in the way democracy is presented here. The social
actors present here are local authorities, local leaders, residents, councillors, com-
munity groups, a governor and a magistrate. Implicit but not present is the national
government – it is absented from the representation through the passive construc-
tion ‘a new duty will be placed’ and so the inherent contradiction of a national
government governing local democracy is glossed over. On one level the horizon of
democracy is extended beyond government to include other elements of the state
– governors (presumably of schools and such like) and the law. However, analytical
focus on who is present highlights the relative absence of ‘the people’ in the
representation of democracy – and having noted this we can also open up for
question the specific representation of the people. Why are the people referred to
as ‘residents’ in this representation of democracy? Is ‘resident’ a political and
democratic identity? What are the implications for the promotion of a democracy
predicated on such a conception of the people?
CDA points one also towards examination of the types of activity present in
representations of events. Here the generalised activity sees local leaders helping
residents to understand the democratic process. This assumes that there is a (sin-
gular) democratic process, which implies also a regularised process (and implicitly
discounting spontaneous outbursts of democratic power such as protests, rallies and
marches for example); it assumes that democracy is the kind of thing that one can
be helped in understanding and that local leaders are capable of aiding such
understanding. In what kind of a democracy are the people instructed in how to
understand democracy by people who occupy prominent roles within the state
apparatus that should be the object of democratic power? That people might need
instruction from local leaders itself points to failure in the ‘democratic process’;
drawing on Colin Hay’s (2007) work on disenchantment with politics, we might
suggest that democratic failure lies not with local people but with the political
system – perhaps local leaders need better instruction in how to respond to demo-
cratic demands.

Conclusion
In this article I have given a brief outline of ways in which CDA can contribute to
political studies in general and to the analysis of particular texts in the political
arena. CDA can focus analysis on the order of discourse and show the ways in
which different practices are networked together discursively, providing a way into
examining and critiquing ways in which political practices are structured. Focus on
genre opens up for examination the way in which politics is enacted and can point
to the disparities in institutional resources that contribute to practices of gover-
© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)
104 MICHAEL FARRELLY

nance. CDA gives tools for examining the imaginaries that serve as the objects of
governance. A fuller analysis would need to incorporate methods and theories
beyond CDA – an example of where this is already being done is in CPE. This by no
means exhausts the potential mutual benefit of wider dialogue between CDA and
other approaches to political studies, and with this article I hope to have contributed
to the opening of some avenues towards such wider dialogue.

Author contact details

Michael Farrelly, Honorary Visiting Fellow, Development Policy and Practice, Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: m.farrelly@open.ac.uk

Note
The author would like to thank Norman Fairclough, Lucy Mayblin and the anonymous reviewers for
comments on the draft of this article.

References
Bevir, M. and R. Rhodes (2004), ‘Interpreting British Governance’, British Journal of Politics & International
Relations 6(2), pp. 130–136.
Communities and Local Government (2008) ‘White Paper Delivers Power Shift to Local People’, Press
Release, London: Communities and Local Government, available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/
news/corporate/886224, accessed 16 February 2010.
Dowding, K. (2004), ‘Interpretation, Truth and Investigation: Comments on Bevir and Rhodes’, British
Journal of Politics & International Relations 6(2), pp. 136–142.
Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2006), Language and Globalization, London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., R. Jessop and A. Sayer (2002), ‘Critical Realism and Semiosis’, Journal of Critical Realism
5(1), pp. 2–10.
Farrelly, M. (2008), ‘ “Global” Discourses of Democracy and an English City’, Journal of Language and
Politics 7(3), pp. 413–430.
Farrelly, M. (forthcoming), Discourse and Democracy, London: Routledge.
Finlayson, A. (2004), ‘Meaning and Politics: Assessing Bevir and Rhodes’, British Journal of Politics &
International Relations 6(2), pp. 149–156.
Hay, C. (2004), ‘ “Taking Ideas Seriously” in Explanatory Political Analysis’, British Journal of Politics &
International Relations 6(2), pp. 142–149.
Hay, C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Jessop, B. (2004), ‘Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy’, Critical Discourse Studies 1(2),
pp. 159–174.
Jessop, B. and N.-L. Sum (2001), ‘Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary Perspectives in Political
Economy’, New Political Economy 6(1), pp. 89–101.
Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science, London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2009), The Discourse of Politics in Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2001), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.

© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Political Studies Association

POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(2)