In my opinion, discourse can be powerful in the sense that a certain piece can have great effectiveness and influence. I think that discourse can have the power to bring groups of people together who may support the same opinion or meaning or idea, and a discourse may be construed as "dangerous" if these opinions or meanings or ideas go against that of the government or majority of society- conflict on a small or big scale. Discourse can also be powerful and/or dangerous when it is used specifically to try and change the thinking of the intended reader. For example, I remember learning in one of my history classes that Hitler had the antagonist characters in all children's books changed so that they were described as Jewish. Granted, Hitler did not actually write the stories in entirety but simply having a few words and sentences changed had a big impact on the minds of these little children, who would now connect Jewish people to the traits and doings of antagonists from their fairy tale stories.
Ascribing meaning to a discourse is one way to control the effects of it, and Hitler was, for a period of time, successful with the workings of his many forms of propaganda. I also think that the amount of press that a certain discourse may attain can also control the effects of it. If the Harry Potter books were never publicized or hyped up in the way that were, if J.K. Rowling's rags to riches story was never told, it could be said that her books would not be as nearly popular as they are now. There might not even have been more than one. How many authors have books that are bought, just because they may have another best seller? "Best-seller" can be looked at like another label along with "emotional" or "unpatriotic" or "political" because all these labels control the amount and kinds of readers, therefore controlling the effects of the discourse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
-by angela pestano
Thanks for heads up on your name, AP.
I like your point about how popularity might shape the discourse- or at least introduce new sources of meaning (i.e. what does it mean that JK was not an author before she began? Why would we consider that when examining the HP series?)
I'm also interested by your thoughts on how the discourse is contextually bound to have meaning in certain circumstances. Good point! What does it mean to have children understand that "Jew" means "evil"? What does it mean to have future generations learn that "Hitler" means "evil S.O.B."?
Post a Comment