Discourse analysis and non-representational theories in heritage studies: a non-reductionist take on their compatibility

ABSTRACT

In the last ten years or so, we have witnessed a shift towards so-called non-representational theories in heritage studies. In non-representational theories, one is interested in cognition, affect, and emotion, as well as textual or visual representations of heritage. This turn can be viewed as a prolongation of the popular approach of analysing heritage as discourse, in which heritage is viewed as a cultural process from which the objects of heritage evolve. However, this paper will demonstrate that some proponents of non-representational theories seem to have overlooked an already established linguistic tradition of analysing affect and emotion ‘in’ texts. Since human affect and emotion are linked with semiotic meaning-making, I argue that it is futile to attempt to separate discourse analysis and non-representational theories. I forward an argument that Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Critical Realism (CR) as a philosophy of science may serve as platforms where non-representational and representational approaches can meet to more fully grasp how we represent and respond to heritage.

KEYWORDS:

• Non-representational theories
• affect
• emotion
• critical discourse analysis (CDA)
• critical realism (CR)
• non-reductionism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Joar Skrede (PhD) is a sociologist and research professor at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research. He works mainly within the fields of Heritage Studies, Critical Discourse Studies, Critical Realism as a philosophy of science, and Urban Studies.

ORCID

Joar Skrede http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4521-5940

Notes

1 Waterton (2014, p. 825) argues that it would be wrong to claim that heritage has only just become emotional, since it is a characteristic that has always been there. However, the point is that the emotional side of heritage has now taken the front seat in many academic endeavours in heritage studies.

2 Others speak of “more-” or “other-than-representational” (Waterton and Watson 2013, p. 554). However, if not used consciously, this terminology may contribute to an element of confusion. Non-representational would logically not involve analyses of representations, although there are several who argue that this is not the case in practice (e.g. Dewsbury et al. 2002, p. 438; Crouch 2010, p. 62; Waterton 2014, p. 826). However, more-than-representational would undoubtedly involve such an interest, whilst other-than-representational may be placed somewhere in the middle: analysing something that is not representations – without necessarily rejecting such approaches.

3 Dixon and Jones (2004) claim that many thought that the “flexible ontology” in CR would prove useful for cultural geographers, but that CR in practice “was largely silent on issues of interpretation and representation, which had long been central analytic concepts for cultural geographers” (Dixon and Jones 2004, p. 80). However, this was a debate almost 40 years ago and things have changed. In his last book (published post mortem), Bhaskar included a whole chapter on the relation between CR and CDA (Bhaskar 2016, chapter 5).

4 For a discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies, see Hølleland and Skrede (2018).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway: [grant number 160010/F40].