1. Translating a concept into practice assumes that the concept is coherent and well-enough considered to apply to material conditions.

2. This being the case, you’re right that the concept of discourse carries a wide net that analytic or quantitative thinkers may deride for lack of precision.

I offer that this is a different point than political will. The main criticism political economy and (general) Fiske detractors have posed is that the American “media studies” strain of cultural studies (of which he has become a straw man) has lacked a focused political will. My goal here is to frame Fiske in regard to his ethical concerns, as they are tied to cultural/political processes, of which the term discourse attempts to account for in abbreviation. In other words for Fiske politics are written into the methodology, which will be discussed in the next scheduled post (October 5th).

I don’t think a lack of strategic intervention or directed political motivation can be traced to imprecision of language, although language is always a crucial contested site.

“Cultural analysis” in a Birmingham tradition seems to denote the first step toward the possibility for mobilization. If specific adherents are invested in “next steps” is a fair question. A rigorous discussion of concepts and methods and where they originate, as you note here, has often served as a historical catalyst for political activity.

This is a great entry, Josh. There’s a lot to chew on, and I’m eager to see part two.

Something I find bewildering about “discourse” as a theoretical term is how it relies on other terms (such as “identity,” as you show here) that are equally difficult to pin down. There’s something recursive about these definitions — one (“discourse”) points to another (“identity”) which points to another (I’d put “narrative” here), and it’s turtles all the way down. For me, this has something of a paralyzing effect — how do I intervene when the terms of my intervention are so ambivalent, or ambiguous, or even vague? I wonder how much of an effect this ambivalence has on our willingness to stop at the stage of mapping, rather than moving past it. A good map is necessary, but pursuing action based on that map involves a certain risk, in that it requires us to decide what we mean and to say it.