Discursive resources in the Discourse Unit

Abstract

This paper outlines theoretical resources that have informed the work of the Discourse Unit in the last decade. The institutional location of the Discourse Unit - as a Centre for Qualitative and Theoretical Research on the Reproduction and Transformation of Language, Subjectivity and Practice - within the discipline of psychology, and the political orientation of its researchers are guiding themes in this account, and a historical framing of the work of the Unit is elaborated. The four key resources - Marxism, Feminism, Post-structuralism and Psychoanalysis - demand an attention to the construction of subjectivity in discourse, and a reflexive focus on the subjectivity of a researcher attempting to explicate patterns of ideology and power. Researchers here are concerned with an analysis of psychology or a refusal of any reduction to the level of the psychological. Participation in the activities of the radical network Psychology Politics Resistance is one expression of the political dimension of our work When we set up the Discourse Unit in Manchester we were aware that to do critical discursive work is to engage in debates across the spectrum of alternative frameworks that contest traditional psychology. The account I am giving here glosses over many theoretical and methodological differences between people working with us. This debate is reflected in the rather clumsy and panoramic subtitle for the Discourse Unit, 'Centre for Qualitative and Theoretical Research on the Reproduction and Transformation of Language, Subjectivity and Practice'. We also knew that it would be antipathetic to the qualitative tradition to try and pin down one distinct theoretical stance, and to interpret material from that single point. The multiplicity of meaning in discourse calls for a multiplicity of vantage points and theoretical frameworks, and a multiplicity of subject positions from which to challenge positivism and empiricism in the discipline. This meant that training, discussion and practice had to be of qualitative and theoretical research. As psychology has changed since the Unit was founded, so has the focus of our work, and now 'qualitative research' and 'action research' tend to operate as the overarching rubrics for interpretative studies of discourse, subjectivity and social order. However, despite the various disagreements between us and shifts of perspective, it is possible to characterise some of the theoretical and political projects of the Unit, and it is useful to reflect upon the conceptual resources that have contributed to it as a distinct research community. It is by no means the only research group concerned with discourse in psychology, and we could not even claim that it was unique in blending discourse theory with an intervention into psychological practice. This history does throw some light upon how theoretical connections in our work have percolated through to wider qualitative debates though, and laying its history open in this way should also help us to reflect upon the subjective investments that a researcher might make in 'alternative' varieties of psychology. Given the importance we attach to interpretation and subjectivity in our current work, this history should also be a more honest way of telling a story about who we are, how you might interpret what we say, and how you might want to share with, or refuse some of the particular assumptions we make.