2. Methodology

Outline

This investigation will take a trans-disciplinary approach to social and textual research. The overall aim is to critically evaluate and analyse the conditions of production and the conditions of consumption of the PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defences and to quantify the effects and the responses to this document. This is a sizeable task and there are limitations – that will be discussed – which mean that this approach will aim to be wide-ranging rather than comprehensive. For instance, the PNAC document is too large, at 90 pages, to be analysed in extensive detail, so, for this reason, the focus of this investigation will be Chapter 2 of the text entitled ‘Four Essential Missions’. This chapter represents the core ‘message’ of the document as it outlines the documents main areas of discussion and contains many of the statements and ideas that are both interesting and disturbing at the same time.

Theoretical Approach

Marx and Engels (1848:3) famously argued that ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class-struggles’, but perhaps this is best reconceptualised as being the history of power-struggles, rather than class-struggles. It can be argued that ‘class’ as a form of social-status and positioning is the product of power. So, to put it simply, class is only one, albeit enormous, particular facet of societal power. There are many other power struggles that have taken place over time, that have contributed to and altered society, and that are still sites of struggle today. So for the purpose of this investigation, the use of Marxist theoretical frameworks, will have as their precondition, the ultimate aim of evaluating not only ‘class-struggles’ but also the power-struggles that continually occur. Power will be a recurring motif within this investigation.

With traditional Marxist theory, in a capitalist society, the economy forms the base: it is the dominant force which supports and determines the societal superstructures that rise out of this economic base. It is this interaction that gave rise to the concept ‘economic determinism’. As Eagleton (1976.2002:5) explains: ‘(Marx believed an opposition existed) between the capitalist class who owns the means of production, and the proletarian class whose labour power the capitalist buys for profit.’ He explains that an ’economic base’ or ‘infrastructure’ is formed consisting of this worker/employer relationship. From this ’economic base’ rises the ’superstructure’: all the particular elements of any given society such as law, politics, religion, education, ethics, and morality. The effect of this superstructure is the creation of a society’s particular ideology and so a strong level of control over members of that society. To enhance this model, Althusser (1971) provided a re-evaluation of Marx’s social dialectic according to the tenets of structuralism. Althusser conceptualised these superstructures as being divided into Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA). The difference, according to Althusser (1971:97), is that the RSA’s ‘function by violence’ and the ISA’s ‘function by ideology’. Those that function by ideology are those that manufacture rule through consent – those that achieve a state akin to Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. ISA’s include religion, education, the family, the legal system, the political system, trade unions, communications and popular culture (Althusser, 1971:96).

Capitalism, like any hitherto existing political or economic ideology, must rely on the state’s ideological apparatus in order to maintain socio-cultural norms. Althusser (1971) argues that ideological apparatus are essential to any capitalist society in order to regulate and reproduce the productive forces. In general, ideology is essential to the continual reproduction of the ‘labour power’ that can, more importantly, when combined with ‘wage capital’, gives the ‘labour power the means with which to reproduce itself’ (Althusser, 1971:87). The capitalist society, then, is a site where the existing social order must be continually reproduced in order to fuel the reproduction of the conditions of production that give value to, and commodify, the means of production as well as the outcome of the production process itself. Similarly, the process of consumption must aim to reproduce itself in order to sustain the reproduction of the conditions of production and the means of production.

Jameson (1980) expands upon Althusser’s rigid model and brings it more inline with Foucauldian organics with his rethinking of society as the totality – a social network – rather than a stiff hierarchy. In some sense the structuralists were engaged in deconstruction because they reduced the complexities of society and its inter-relations into measurable quantities. Other theorists have also had a notable influence and serve as invaluable resources. Adorno’s ideas (1972) about commodification, commodity fetishism, homogeneity and hegemony through cultural inculcation are also relevant as is the influence of Bourdieu (1991).

Analytical Approach

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an analytically based approach to social and textual research and the methodology developed by Fairclough (1989.1992) will be the centrepiece for this approach. Fairclough’s model is akin to a neo-Marxist framework for discourse analysis and so it is complemented and enhanced by cultural and literary theorists that have been discussed. This approach will take the position that theory and practice are inextricably linked and that the two should never be disconnected from one another. In light of this, a further, though lesser, aim will also be to relate the linguistic features found within the text to the theoretical concepts that explore them, and also, to their wider historical, political, social and cultural contexts.

Fairclough views ‘language as a form of social practice’ (1989:20). Society is established and maintained through a complex series of agreements made by individuals. These agreements are created, upheld and given authority through language and so, in turn, language embodies society and society is embodied through language. The framework for CDA moves through three spheres of analyses: analysis of the discourse practice, textual analysis, and finally the relating of the two to the social practices that they are embedded within. In terms of textual analysis, the CDA will focus upon Fairclough’s (1989.1992) guidelines for exploring interdiscursivity, intertextuality, the conditions of discourse practice, cohesion, discourse representation, semantics, metaphor, presupposition and modality.

All in all, CDA is concerned with evaluating, analysing and critically interpreting the reproductive cycles of capitalism, the dynamics of power – specifically socio-political power – and the orders of dominance therein, at a discoursal level, with the higher aim of linking these findings to their wider socio-political aims and effects. Fairclough (1992:50) argues that ‘power is implicit within everyday social practices which are pervasively distributed at every level in all domains of social life, and are constantly engaged in.’ He cites Foucault (1981: 86) as arguing that power ‘is tolerable only on condition that it masks a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms.’ However, as Fairclough (1992:51) argues: ‘power does not work negatively by forcefully dominating those who are subject to it; it incorporates them, and is productive in the sense that it shapes and retools them to fit in with its needs’.

Fairclough (2006) also adapts this perspective to the issues surrounding Globalization and the part that discourse plays. Also from the same perspective Van Dijk (1998) draws together the theoretical concepts related to ideology and power with Critical Discourse Analysis and provides an extensive framework for evaluating the representation of ideology in discourse.

Summary

So, this approach will be multi-tiered: the first stage will be to evaluate the historical context of the document by concentrating on the development of the Neo-Conservative ideology in the United States after the Second World War. This is crucial to understanding the text and the impact it has had. Jameson (1980: ix) opens his argument with the slogan ‘Always historicize!’ meaning always critically evaluate history. This imperative will be the fundamental mandate for this investigation.

The second stage involves critical analysis of the PNAC document, using the framework for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as outlined by Fairclough (1989. 1992), in order to determine what caused such a reaction amongst the ‘internet community’. Although it must be noted that the ‘internet community’ is representative of the real global community; it is composed of real people who are active members of their respective societies.

The third stage will involve researching the site of production and the site of consumption, and the resultant effect that the text has had. Of course, because the electronic medium is predominantly a storage-medium, it is possible to measure the reaction and demonstrate these effects.

Finally, the conclusion will aim to synthesise these three semi-autonomous strands of investigation to form a cohesive interpretation of the PNAC document, the group itself, and the wide-ranging social, cultural and political effects that followed their arrival.

Perspective and Limitations

The methodological approach also intrinsically shapes the perspective of this investigation on many levels which, in some ways, could be seen as a limitation or a drawback; but, as with any approach this is unavoidable. For instance, this research project is by no means objective: for all human beings, subjectivity is unavoidable. As Weber (1897) argued: ‘There is no absolutely “objective” scientific analysis of culture or of “social phenomena”’ that is ‘independent of special and “one-sided” viewpoints according to which – expressly or tacitly, consciously or unconsciously – they are selected, analysed and organised for expository purposes’. It is though beneficial to at least acknowledge our inherent subjectivity and aim for the – albeit unreachable – position of objectivity, rather than ignorantly believe in our own objectivity and think that subjectivity is a malleable facet of conscious thought. It can be argued that objectivism is usually the worst form of subjectivism: namely the highly subjective belief that objectivity exists.

Politically, this is from a 21^st century Socialist perspective that views capitalism as a failed political, economic and ideological system that has been imbued with too much autonomy and, as such, is completely out of control. As Marx (1845:29) rightly argued: ‘the products of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down to their creations.’ The United States is, first and foremost, the beacon of capitalism, and it is for this reason that it has been chosen as the site for this discussion.

Another important point is that, despite the fact that Britain and the United States share a common language, there are implicit cultural differences between the two nations. This entails the danger that will always loom when viewing another culture from the outside: the risk of misinterpretation and even ignorance to what could be culturally specific phenomena. Although, it can be argued that phenomena that is culturally specific must also be ideologically bound, even implicitly hegemonised, and so they still remain thoroughly salient points for discussion, even though the risk of misinterpretation is still there.

NEXT PAGE>>>