Theoretical and analytical frameworks of “politics of language” are investigated in this article.
In Chapter 1, the dominant theoretical assumption for “politics of language.” is discussed. The changing reality of political society has given birth to the discipline of “politics of language.” This new discipline has crystallized and taken on the epistemological split among the former political studies on language. The former studies, inclined to word behaviorism and functionalism, tend to focus attention on a settled cycle of normative political languages used by political leaders or government agencies. Since the 1960's, however, a post-industrial society has developed in Japan as in the USA, the USSR, and the European countries, and normative political language has responded to these changes. Industrialization accompanied by rapid economic growth has inevitably promoted the development of massization and huge organization, resulting in changes in the political modes of control, social integration, cultural manipulation, and dominance. This changing political reality has politicized language, and has “languaged” politics. The 1960's has also seen the simultaneous development of another new political actuality in Japan, an era of such radical liberation movements is
shimin (citoyen) movements,
jumin (residents') movements, women's liberation and student activism. Identity politics of this kind have evoked a new political
parole, at Sanrizuka, Minamata and everywhere. In the changing political situation, “politics of language” has been noted for first, demystifying the “Word of the hidden political God” in the normative daily language, and second, for introducing newborn political
paroles.
In Chapter 2, the basic theoretical framework for “politics of language” is described. We find primary political language in the natural language of daily life. The primary is transformed into secondary political language by its usage as the “
Word of the
Other, ” the Other being the dominant class: elites, leaders, priests or technocrats. In this process, the capitalized Word first arises from its usage in the primary political language. But once elevated to the holier realms of secondary political language, the Word is re-established, reidentified and its meaning is thus redefined in terms of the dominant political context. In this manner, secondary political language evolves. New words also join the secondary political language when political systems merge and out of the contest, revolt and revolution new political
paroles appear which express opposition to the established normative system of
langue. These new words contribute another dynamic in the formation of secondary political language.
Chapter 3 deals with the analytical framework as applied to the dynamics of political
langue and
parole. Seven dichotomous units which together make possible cumulative analytical levels are investigated: 1)
langue and
ecriture, 2)
langue and
parole, 3)
signifiant and
signifie, 4) metaphor and metominy, 5) connotation and denotation, 6) normative language and life language and 7) political language and political society. Applying these analytical levels to Japan, two sources for the mystification of normative language can be found: one stems from the rhetorical, connotative language based on traditional social relations, and the other originates in scientific, denotative language derived from modern economics.
Paroles of identity politics enforce or demystify these normative languages.
抄録全体を表示