The methodology that will be used to analyze data in this paper is “critical discourse

analysis”. According to Fairclough this methodology is focused on discovering how language

interactions are structured by power relations and how in turn they reproduce those relations
(Fairclough 2001: 1). Fairclough claims that critical discourse analysis is done by looking for
assumptions in various discourses that are seen by the speakers as ‘common sense’ (Fairclough
2001: 2) and, relying on Foucault, calls these assumptions ‘orders of discourse’ (Foucault 1981).
Orders of discourse are ‘the social organization and control of linguistic variation’ and they
function as frames for creating discourses (Fairclough 2003: 24). For Fairclough they can be
seen as rules that structure possibilities for creating meaning by excluding some forms discourses
can take and increasing the possibility for others (Fairclough 2003: 22–24).

As we have mentioned discourses in our research will be seen as ‘discursive formations’

defined by Foucault as systems of statements whose relations are regulated by certain rules
(Foucault 2002: 41–42). According to Foucault rules of discursive formations determine what
can be said about objects by creating ‘positions’ from which individuals form statements
(Foucault 2002: 55–62). Pécheux calls this ‘the subjective space of enunciation’ and claims that
rules of discourses limit the variations individual acts of enunciation can take (Pécheux 2014:
95). Althusser argues similarly and claims that this is the way discourses subjectify individuals
and therefore: “…every discourse produces a subjectivity-effect” (Althusser 2014: 85). It is
precisely these rules that will be the focus of our analysis.

The basic unit of our analysis will be what Angermuller refers to as an ‘utterance’ which is
his reformulation of Foucault’s notion of ‘énoncé’. In order to avoid the ambiguity of this notion
Angermuller defines utterances as the smallest units of discourse that can be said to have
meaning and claims that they have the form of a sentence (Angermuller 2014: 12–14). His idea
is that discourse analysis should focus on rules that determine relations between those sentences
(Angermuller 2014: 50–53). Van Dijk’s and Kintsch’s idea of discourse analysis is very similar.
According to them the basic unit of analysis is a ‘proposition’ which also has a form of a
sentence (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983: 13–14). For Van Dijk and Kintsch discourse analysis
should consist in looking for ‘structures’ which they define as rules that systematize and create
meaning within a discourse by determining relations between its propositions (van Dijk and
Kintsch 1983: 20). According to these authors rules of discourse work exactly the same as ‘rules
of formation’ that are ‘conditions of the existence of statements’ in Foucault’s definition of a
discursive formation (Foucault 2002: 42). Therefore these rules work by limiting the space of
possible utterances within a discursive formation.

According to van Dijk and Kintsch discourse analysis is an inductive methodology that should be
conducted on two levels. The first level is called ‘local coherence’ and it consists in looking for
points within discourse around which propositions form systematic relations 1 (van Dijk and
Kintsch 1983: 189). The second level is called a ‘macrostructure’ and entails mapping relations
between different local coherences (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983: 190–191). The macrostructure is
a global system of rules within a certain discursive formation or what we have called the ‘order
of discourse’. Following van Dijk and Kintsch our analysis will consist in ‘mapping’ regularities
in relations between utterances in order to outline different local coherences so that in the end we
could delineate this discursive formations macrostructure.

Since we are interested in finding out if the rules of the discursive formation we will be
analyzing coincide with the mechanisms cultures of rejection use to structure discourses we will
rely on van Dijks and Kintschs idea of ‘strategic reading’. According to van Dijk and Kintsch a
‘strategy’ is a series of hypothesis and theoretical assumptions that a researcher uses in order to
reconstruct the rules of a discourse (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983: 11). Angermiller makes a
similar point when he claims that every discourse analysis presupposes that the researcher
interprets an ‘object discourse’ by using his ‘theory discourse’ (Angermuller 2014: 56). In this
way a researcher uses his own theoretical lens as an instrument for mapping the rules of a
discursive formation in question, thereby testing its validity.

In accordance with this our analysis will consist in trying to map the structures of the
analyzed discursive formation by looking for two types of rules:

(1) Rules that regulate utterances through different forms of ‘othering’ defined as a: “…
construction of the self or in-group and the other or out-group in mutual and unequal
opposition through identification of some desirable characteristic that the self/in-group
has and the other/out-group lacks and/or some undesirable characteristic that the
other/out-group has and the self/in-group lacks. Othering thus sets up a superior self/in-

1
Van Dijks and Kintschs notion of local coherence is reminiscent of Hayed Whites notion of a ‘discursive trope’
(White 1986: 1–2).
 group in contrast to an inferior other/out-group, but this superiority/inferiority is nearly
always left implicit” (Brons 2015: 70).
(2) Rules that regulate the formations and combinations of utterances in order to present
them as antecedents to different kinds of emotions. According to Kleres discourses have
different kinds of ‘emotionalities’ which means they have inscribed into them rules that
serve to invoke specific kinds of emotions (Kleres 2010: 189–190).

Althusser, Louis. 2014. “The subjectivity effect of discourse”, In: Johannes Angermuller,
Dominique Maingueneau, Ruth Wodak (eds.). The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in
Theory and Analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Angermuller, Johannes. 2014. Poststructuralist Discourse: Analysis Subjectivity in Enunciative

Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Brons, Lajos. 2015. “Othering, an Analysis”, Transcience 6(1): 69–90

Kleres, Jochen. 2010. “Emotions and Narrative Analysis: A Methodological Approach”, Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41(2): 182–202

Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power. London: Routledge

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse Textual: Analysis for social research. London:
Routledge

Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse”, In: Young, Robert. (ed.). Untying the Text: A
Post-structuralist Reader. London: Routledge

Foucault, Michel. 2002. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Routledge

Pêcheux, Michel. 2014. “From ideology to discourse”, In: Johannes Angermuller, Dominique
Maingueneau, Ruth Wodak (eds.). The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and
Analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Van Dijk, Teun A. and Kintsch, Walter. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New
York: Academic Press

White, Hayden. 1986. Tropics of Discourse. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Williams, Caroline Athlone Press