Orientalism - A Netflix Unlimited Series - Diva-portal.org
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
930901-0313
Orientalism – A Netflix Unlimited Series
A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of The Orientalist
Representations of Arab Identity in Netflix Film and TV
By: Stefan Maatouk
Peace and Conflict Studies
Bachelor’s Thesis
Spring 2021
Supervisor: Ivan Gusic
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
Abstract
Orientalism was a term developed by post-colonial theorist Edward Said to describe the ways
in which Europeans, or the West, portrayed the Orient as inferior, uncivilised, and wholly anti-
Western. Netflix Inc., the world’s largest subscription based streaming service, which as of 2018,
expanded its streaming venue to over 190 countries globally, is the wellspring of knowledge for many
people. Through the multimodal critical discourse analysis of 6 Netflix films and television
programmes (Stateless, Gods of Egypt, Messiah, Al Hayba, Sand Castle, and Fauda) the study
examines the extent to which the streaming giant is culpable in the reproduction of Orientalist
discourses of power, i.e., discourses which facilitate the construction of the stereotyped Other. The
results have shown that Netflix strengthens, through the dissemination and distribution of symbols and
messages to the general population, the domination and authority over society and its political,
economic, cultural, and ideological domains. Using Norman Fairclough’s approach to critical
discourse analysis combined with a social semiotic perspective, this study endeavours to design a
comprehensive methodological and theoretical framework which can be utilized by future researchers
to analyse and critique particular power dynamics within society by exposing the dominant ideological
world-view distortions which reinforce oppressive structures and institutional practices.
Keywords: Netflix, Orientalism, Othering, Critical Discourse Analysis, Media, Power, Knowledge,
Ideology, Hegemony
Word Count:13,979
ii
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
“There is nothing mysterious or natural about authority. It is formed, irradiated, disseminated; it is
instrumental, it is persuasive; it has status, it establishes canons of taste and value; it is virtually
indistinguishable from certain ideas it dignifies as true, and from traditions, perceptions, and
judgments it forms, transmits, reproduces.”
- Said, 1978
iii
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
List of Abbreviations
CDA – Critical Discourse Analysis
IDFs – Ideological-discursive Formations
WANA – West Asia North Africa
iv
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 RELEVANCE TO PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES RESEARCH........................................................................................ 3
1.4 PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4.1 A Look at Orientalist Discourse in Cinema ........................................................................................................ 4
1.5 DELIMITATIONS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5 THESIS OUTLINE.......................................................................................................................................................... 6
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 DISCOURSE .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Power & Knowledge: A Foucauldian Conceptualization of Discourse .............................................................. 7
2.1.2 Discourse as Social Practice............................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Ideology, Hegemony, and the Media ................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 ORIENTALISM AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ‘OTHER’ ................................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Orientalism: A Post-colonial Culture ............................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Orientation Towards the Other ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 THEORY AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL ........................................................................................................................... 14
III. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................................15
3.1 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 FAIRCLOUGH’S THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL .......................................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Text Analysis and Social Semiotics ................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Discursive Practice ........................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Sociocultural Practice ....................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 CHOICE OF MATERIAL ............................................................................................................................................... 20
IV. ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................................22
4.1 TEXT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
4.1.1 Exclusion, Inclusion, and Prominence .............................................................................................................. 22
4.1.2 Point of View ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.3 Construction of the Stereotyped Other .............................................................................................................. 26
4.1.4 A ‘Regime’ of Truth ........................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 DISCURSIVE PRACTICE .............................................................................................................................................. 31
4.2.1 Intertextuality .................................................................................................................................................... 32
4.3 SOCIOCULTURAL PRACTICE ...................................................................................................................................... 34
4.3.1 Order of Discourse............................................................................................................................................ 35
V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................37
5.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVISITED ............................................................................................................................ 37
5.2 DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................40
PRIMARY SOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
SECONDARY SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
v
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
List of Figures
Figure 1: (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:63) .................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: (Said, 1978:28)................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:68) ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 4: (Incognita, 0:03:11)............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 5: Netflix plot description for Alex Proyas' (2016) Gods of Egypt ....................................................... 23
Figure 6: (Proyas, 2016, 0:44:03) ...................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: (Proyas, 2016, 0:44:04) ...................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 8: Messiah promotional poster (McTeigue, et al., 2020) ....................................................................... 25
Figure 9: Netflix trailer for Messiah (McTeigue, 2020, 0:00:05)...................................................................... 26
Figure 10: Netflix plot description for Samer Barqawi's (2017) Al Hayba ....................................................... 27
Figure 11: (Episode 1, 2017, 0:37:15) ............................................................................................................... 27
Figure 12: (Coimbra, 2017, 0:04:13) ................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 13: (Coimbra, 2017, 0:04:15) ................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 14: (Coimbra, 2017, 0:30:18) ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 15: (Coimbra, 2017, 0:20:32) ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 16: (Episode 1, 2015, 0:04:55) ............................................................................................................... 30
Figure 17: (Episode 1, 2015, 0:05:01) ............................................................................................................... 30
Figure 18: (Episode 1, 2015, 0:08:38) ............................................................................................................... 31
Figure 19: (Episode 1, 2015, 0:08:47) ............................................................................................................... 31
vi
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
I. Introduction
“Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, semiliterate primitive monkeys. I just have zero sympathy
for them or their culture. A culture where people don’t use toilet paper and forks” (Gunia, 2019). These
were the callous words uttered by Tucker Carlson — conservative pundit and host of one of America’s
highest rated weekly ‘news’ programs Tucker Carlson Tonight (Joyella, 2021) — during a 2006 radio
discussion regarding the Iraqi War. Unbeknownst to Mr. Carlson and what is sure to leave him
dumbfounded is that the first recorded use of le papier toilette was in 6th – 8th century China, whereas
the product was not commercially available on the US market until about 1857, despite being today’s
most commonly used method of ‘cleaning’ in North America. ‘Environmentally concerning’ and
‘unhygienic’ are a few words that have been used to describe this supposed superior modus operandi
of arse cleansing, which leaves visitors to the USA from the ‘third world’ bewildered at the lack of
water-based washing methods. (Nosowitz, 2015). As for the fork, the inaugural employment of the
tool as a dining utensil was first documented within the noble courts of the 7th century Byzantine
Empire. It only began to appear in Italian cookbooks as late as the 13th century before spreading across
the Western reaches of the European continent (Ward, 2009).
Nonetheless, the extent to which these claims to empirical reality may be considered true or
false is not of immediate concern. The question in which this study aims at deducing is, rather: to what
extent are these bigoted, intolerant, and dehumanizing claims and distorted images — those pertaining
to Arab identity and culture — present in Netflix film and television? Whether it is the devout
fundamentalist bent on the complete desolation of ‘Western civilization’, the silk-stocking oil sheik,
the war-waging Jihadi, a monolithic fantasy land characterized by flying carpets and exotic princesses,
or the “primitive monkey” ignorant to the corporeity of bowel towels and pronged dining utensils,
Western conceptualizations of the Orient have facilitated, through the implementation of colonial
bureaucracies and discursive practices, the domination, restructuring, and subsequent authority over
the Orient (Said, 1978:19).
These sort of fabricated views and overly generalized depictions of the Orient have been
adopted eagerly by a “mass of writers […] poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists,
economists, and imperial administrators” alike (Said, 1978:20). While Orientalist portrayals of Arab
identity can be traced back to Western colonial and imperial establishments, the contemporary
globalized world has reinforced, by way of the mass media, racialized portrayals of Orientalist
stereotypes (Said, 1978:41).
1
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
1.1 Research Problem
Terms including racism, xenophobia, and discrimination have been used to refer to processes
“whereby social groups categorize other groups as different or inferior, on the basis of phenotypical or
cultural markers” (Castles, et al., 2014:59). Such processes function to legitimize the exploitation and
exclusion of a particular ethnic group through economic, social, and political domination. Through the
development of various legislation and administrative policies, the power of the majority or dominant
group is sustained while marginalized groups are perpetually disenfranchised. Often, these
discriminatory processes are the result of stereotypical presumptions maintained through “socially
constructed markers of difference” (Castles, et al., 2014:59-60). After the tragic attacks on the World
Trade Centre in New York City on September 11th, 2001 and the USA’s subsequent proclamation of
a so-called ‘global war on terror’, a vast majority of racial discrimination has been oriented towards
Arab minorities within Western societies and Arab countries deemed a threat to Western civilization
(Castles, et al., 2014:60).
One way in which the demonization of Arabs is maintained is through ideological state
mechanisms such as the mass media (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:15). The media functions to fulfil the
interests of the ruling class through the dissemination of hegemonic ideological structures while
presenting these prevailing ideologies as transparent or common sense (Fairclough, 1995:25). Media
hegemony describes the process in which dominant ontological principles are circulated throughout
the public and private spheres of social life, shaping the culture, beliefs, and values of a society
(Altheide, 1984:477).
Netflix, the world’s largest and most fashionable subscription-based streaming service, is a
prime example of the media’s role in the production and reproduction of Orientalist discourse. The
streaming platform has been successful towards the advancement of state and political power and has
had undeniable effects on the global perceptions of the ‘Other’ (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:746). Therefore,
this study will be interested in dealing with how Arab identity is misrepresented through the discursive
practices of Netflix film and television.
1.2 Aim and Research Questions
Discursive practices are one of the many facets that function to maintain and reproduce hegemonic
and oppressive power structures or orders of discourse through the naturalization of ideological-
discursive formations, or ideologies that “come to be seen as common sense” (Fairclough, 1995:95).
Therefore, by using Norman Fairclough’s approach to critical discourse analysis, the aim/objective of
2
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
this study will be to deconstruct and subsequently challenge the exaggerated representations of both
Arab and Western identity, which have come to dominate “economic, political, cultural, and
ideological domains of society” (Fairclough, 1995:76). Thus, this study will hope to engender some
form of empowerment and change through a systematized awareness and critique of ideology while
refuting the myth that media is somehow a “mirror to reality” (Fairclough, 1995:82). Lastly, this study
aims to familiarize its audience with critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a methodological approach,
with the purpose of raising awareness around the manipulative nature of media; “so that the reader
would be competent enough to detect the biased and exploitative language and develop a critical
approach towards” discourse (Amirian, 2012:3).
The primary research question which will help guide the investigation throughout this study is
as follows:
How successful can the multimodal critical discourse analysis of tele-filmic data be in addressing
issues linked to Orientalist representations of the ‘Other’ within visually oriented discourse material?
Moreover, a set of secondary questions will help guide my analysis of the data:
1. How is Arab and Muslim identity constructed through Netflix film and TV?
2. How is Western identity constructed through Netflix film and TV?
3. What conclusions can be made in regard to the relationship between Netflix and the order of
discourse?
1.3 Relevance to Peace and Conflict Studies Research
Johan Galtung, Norwegian sociologist widely regarded as the father of peace and conflict studies
research, wrote in (1969:168) that if peace and conflict studies is to be regarded as action against
violence, then our definition of violence must be sufficiently comprehensive to address all forms of it.
Correspondingly, Galtung (1969:168) defines violence not only as direct or physical violence but as
“the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is”. In
other words, structural or indirect violence refers to violence which is structurally embedded and
conducive of asymmetrical power relations or “unequal life chances” (Galtung, 1969:170-171).
Therefore, while the misrepresentations of Arab and Muslim identity may not constitute what Galtung
describes as personal violence, an instance where a person causes direct harm to another (Galtung,
1969:171), Orientalism facilitates the marginalization, barbarization, and dehumanization of former
colonial subjects and casts “them in the position of subjected Others” (Aljubouri, 2020:10).
3
Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
Galtung (1990:291) expands his definition of violence to include the concept of cultural
violence, which refers to aspects of culture that are implicitly employed as a way of legitimizing direct
or structural violence. Cultural hegemony, a term developed by Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci,
refers to the domination of society through the manipulation of economic, political, religious, or
cultural and ideological domains by the ruling class (Fairclough, 1992:91-92). “It is hegemony, or
rather the result of cultural hegemony at work, that gives Orientalism […] durability and strength”
(Said, 1978:23).
The notion of discourse is a fundamental element that has received considerable notice within
the field of peace and conflict studies research. While there exists many conflicting and overlapping
definitions of the term, it is widely referred to in social theory, including the work of French
philosopher Michel Foucault, as the “different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social
practice” (Fairclough, 1992:3). Discourse, in this sense, refers not only to the use of language, but
other semiotic modes including visual images and possesses the capacity to “position people in
different ways as social subjects” (Fairclough, 1992:3-4). Likewise, exaggerated, and demeaning
images of Arabs and Muslims in tele-film constitutes and reproduces discourse, or knowledge, in a
manner that places them in the position of ‘subject race’ or subjected Other (Fairclough, 1995:6).
Discourse is inextricably linked to notions of power, which is another foundational element
within peace and conflict studies research. Foucault describes power as being “exercised within
discourses in the ways which they constitute and govern individual subjects” (Weedon, 1987:113).
Thus, Orientalist discourse constitutes a form of power relations that attaches to it “strategies of
domination” in so far that it possesses authority over “the body, unconscious and conscious mind and
emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern” (Diamond, et al. 1988:185).
1.4 Previous Research
Critical discourse analysis is a multidisciplinary methodological and theoretical approach insofar that
it has been used within a wide range of academic fields including linguistics, the social sciences, and
film and media studies. Therefore, this section will provide a brief overview of the research
surrounding Orientalist representations of Arab and Muslim identity within film.
1.4.1 A Look at Orientalist Discourse in Cinema
The media has multiple functions insofar that it can inform, socialize, entertain, educate, and ensure
political participation. The influence of the mass media on our daily lives is steadily becoming more
obvious due to an increase in the rate of technological change and rampant globalization. Media is, in
4Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
many cases, the wellspring of information for many people and has become both the producer and
distributor of knowledge. The globalization of the mass media coupled with the corporate expansion
of media conglomerates on an international scale has ushered in a plethora of new platforms in which
information can be disseminated. Therefore, the mass media, media order of discourse in particular,
should be regarded as an important element towards social and structural change (Türkoğlu, et al.,
2021:742).
It is therefore possible to claim that cinema is one of the many facets whose purpose is to fulfil
the various functions of the mass media (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:742). “Cinema […], which is of
particular importance for the conduct of today’s political struggles, creates an arena of cultural
representation and determines how reality will be grasped through representational forms” (Türkoğlu,
et al., 2021:742). Cinema, therefore, possesses the capacity to strengthen asymmetrical relations of
power through ideological distortions of reality and the reproduction of stereotypical imagery. Films
such as the Ten Commandments (1956), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Midnight Express (1978) – to
name a few – can thus be conceptualized as embodying Orientalist constructions of the stereotyped
Other. These Orientalist depictions manifest and generate meaning through the use of various semiotic
modes, i.e., visual, linguistic, auditory, spatial, gestural, et cetera (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:743). “Social
semiotics does not accept that texts are made ‘by accident’: each aspect of tele-film contributes to its
meaning potential in a meaningful way” (Iedema, 2001:201).
Despite the controversies surrounding cinematic representations of minorities in film,
Orientalist portrayals of Arab and Muslim identity in tele-film continues to spread at an unprecedented
rate (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:743). And while several studies have been conducted pertaining to the
Orientalist representations of Arab and Muslim identity in film and television, this study provides a
particular niche considering Netflix’s ascendance and subsequent rise in paramountcy within the world
of subscription-based streaming services.
1.5 Delimitations and Ethical Considerations
When engaging in the critical analysis of a communicative event, analysts will often find themselves,
to some extent, associated with the culture or society under study. This means that the analyst is
vulnerable to the “taken-for-granted, common-sense understandings expressed in the material” which
are under investigation (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:21). Because CDA is a qualitative method of analysis,
subjective biases can serve as a hindrance to one’s study. Since the researcher is the “primary
instrument of data collection” and qualitative research focuses largely on subjective experience and
interpretation, validity is often difficult to achieve (Creswell, 2009:195). Therefore, researchers must
5Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
be aware of their own subjective agenda, biases, and “how their interpretation is shaped by their
background” (Creswell, 2009:195).
Ethics must always be taken into consideration while conducting a critical discourse analysis.
CDA aims at deconstructing oppressive power structures and promoting free and democratic societies,
making its pursuit exceedingly moralistic and ethical. Oftentimes, CDA is culpable of appropriating
the very practices it recognizes as Machiavellian by attempting to inculcate its own hegemonic
discourse (Graham, 2018:186). “Above all, its major moralizing element betrays an interest not so
much in finding the truth as in proclaiming it” (Graham, 2018:186). Finally, CDA analysts must be
heedful when considering who may be using the analysis and for what purpose while at the same time
questioning whether or not the study is “helping to naturalize other equally but differently ideological
practices” (Fairclough, 1995:83).
While these issues may present a hinderance to this particular study, there exists possible
solutions. The researcher must try to distance oneself from the material. For example, the research can
visualize oneself as an anthropologist, “who is exploring a foreign universe of meaning in order to find
out what makes sense there” (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:21).
1.5 Thesis Outline
The remainder of the thesis will be divided into 4 chapters. Chapter 2, Theoretical Framework, will
focus on deliberating two main theories: discourse and its interrelated concepts, i.e., power-knowledge,
ideology, hegemony, and media discourse; and Orientalism and the construction of the Other. The
theoretical framework will facilitate a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in which this study
endeavours to deduce. Chapter 3, Methodology, will introduce Norman Fairclough’s approach to
critical discourse analysis as a method and clarify the significance of social semiotic analysis of tele-
filmic data. Chapter 4, Analysis, will conduct a social semiotic and intertextual analysis of 6 Netflix
films/TV programmes: Stateless, Gods of Egypt, Messiah, Al Hayba, Sand Castle, and Fauda. The
chapter will end with a discussion into the wider sociocultural implications of the data. Chapter 5,
Conclusion, will summarize the research findings while making recommendations for future research.
6Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
II. Theoretical Framework
This chapter will present the theoretical perspectives relevant to the choice of method and research
problem. The chapter will begin with a detailed overview surrounding the notion of discourse as theory
and its role “in the social construction of the world” (Jørgensen, et al., 2005:4). In order to facilitate a
multidimensional and diverse understanding of discourse, Foucauldian ideas of power-knowledge,
ideology, and Gramscian notions of hegemony in relation to media orders of discourse will be
introduced for later operationalization. Secondly, given that the study is grounded on Western
representations of the East, a brief account of Edward Said’s Orientalism in synthesis with theories
surrounding the construction of the Other will be discussed.
2.1 Discourse
The following section will provide a general discussion into the notion of discourse as defined by
French philosopher Michel Foucault and within the field of sociolinguistics. In critical discourse
analysis, theory and method are intertwined (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:4). Thus, in order to avoid
reiteration, this section will focus on the theoretical concepts of CDA including power, ideology, and
hegemony. Chapter 3 will focus on CDA strictly as a methodological approach.
2.1.1 Power & Knowledge: A Foucauldian Conceptualization of Discourse
Amidst the essentially unquantifiable waves and ripples flowing through the social sciences as a result
of Michel Foucault’s contributions is his concept of discourse and of discourse analysis as a method
(Fairclough, 1992:37). Foucault’s earlier ‘archaeological’ work contributed to two major theoretical
insights. First, he focused on discourse as constitutive of the social world, its subjects, and objects of
knowledge. Secondly, Foucault was concerned with the interdependency of discourse practices or
intertextuality; an excavation of the hidden knowledge behind historically oriented texts, how they
draw upon one another, and the interrelated and transformative nature of such practices (Fairclough,
1992:39-40). “[…] any given type of discourse practice is generated out of combinations of others and
is defined by its relationship to others” (Fairclough, 1992:40). Although Foucault would describe
discourse analysis as the analysis of “verbal performances”, he is concerned not with the linguistic
structure of language but with discursive formations, a sociohistorical system of rules which produce
the dominant conceptualizations of ‘knowledge’ (what can and cannot be said) at particular times,
spaces, and institutional settings (Fairclough, 1992:40). Here, however, knowledge is conceived not
as something that is internal to the agent, but as ‘statements’ about the world that have been externally
7Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
structured. Foucault is concerned not with the objectivity of such claims to knowledge but to the extent
to which they dominate within a group or institution. These epistemes or “knowledges”, Foucault
explains, are essential constituents to the power relationships of a society (Miller, 1990:117). “Every
point in the exercise of power is a site where knowledge is formed. Conversely every established piece
of knowledge permits and assures the exercise of power” (Miller, 1990:117). The Foucauldian
understanding of power is conceived as being a productive force; a force that produces its own subjects
and constitutes its own social world, rather than something which individuals possess and exercise
over others (Jørgensen, 2002:37).
While Foucault’s contributions have left a huge impact on the social theory of discourse and
its relationship to knowledge and power, Fairclough (1992:39-38) calls for a synthesis between
Foucauldian notions of discourse and linguistically oriented understandings of the term. Despite
having provided a rich set of theoretical claims, Foucauldian conceptualizations of discourse fail to
include the “discursive and linguistic analysis of real texts” (Fairclough, 1992:56). Fairclough
(1992:56) also criticizes Foucault for exaggerating the extent to which social subjects are manipulated
by power and for underestimating group agency and the possibility of change through struggle. These
problems, explains Fairclough (1992:57), are “connected with the absence of a concept of practice” or
an absence of “real instances of people doing or saying or writing things”. In other words, while
Foucault chooses to undervalue practice as an element of social change, Fairclough acknowledges that
it “cannot be reduced to the implementation of structures” and that practice ultimately helps constitute
structural and social change (Fairclough, 1992:58).
2.1.2 Discourse as Social Practice
Fairclough, like other critical discourse analysts, envisions discourse as a form of social practice, and
discourse analysis as the analysis of the relationship between text and sociocultural practice
(Fairclough, 1995:7). Text, according to Fairclough’s theory, extends beyond linguistic structures to
other semiotic modes of communication or meaning making including visual, gestural, and musical
resources. Social practice “implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and
the situation(s), institution(s), and social structure(s) which frame it” (Brandl, 2017:4). The concept of
practice is fundamental insofar that it facilitates a critical understanding of the relationship between
social interaction and social structures. And while social structures define a set of prospective
outcomes, practice is seen as a way of regulating the selection of those outcomes (Brandl, 2017:5).
Thus, Fairclough positions himself alongside poststructuralist epistemes in suggesting that
while discursive practices maintain pre-existing power structures, they also possess the capacity to
8Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
reshape and challenge them “by using words to denote what may lie outside the structure” (Jørgensen,
et al., 2002:65). Where Fairclough differs from poststructuralist traditions, however, is that he
advocates towards an interdisciplinary approach to the critical analysis of a communicative event,
calling for a unification of both the “macro-sociological analysis of social practice” and “detailed
textual analysis” (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:65-66). So, while macro-sociological traditions highlight the
influence of social structures over social practice, linguistically oriented methods, including
Fairclough’s approach to CDA, recognizes both the constitutive and constituted nature of discourse or
discursive practices (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:66). Discourse, according to Fairclough, “is both a form
of action through which people can change the world and a form of action which is socially and
historically situated and is in a dialectical relationship with other aspects of the social” (Jørgensen, et
al., 2002:62).
2.1.3 Ideology, Hegemony, and the Media
Ideology, like power, is a concept that holds particular weight within the realm of linguistically
oriented discourse studies. Discourse is regarded as being “the pre-eminent linguistic material of
ideology” (Fairclough, 1992:5). In other words, discursive practices that contribute to the reproduction
of asymmetrical power relations are understood as ideological effects. Hence, critical discourse
analysis focuses not only on the discursive practices which shape representations of the social world,
but to the extent to which these discursive practices advance the interests of a particular social group
(Jørgensen, 2002:63). Norman Fairclough describes CDA as a framework which aims to methodically
explore the
[o]ften opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events
and texts and (b) broader social and cultural structures, relations and processes […] how such
practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles
over power […] how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor
securing power and hegemony.
Figure 1: (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:63)
Therefore, social structures function as ideological domains that determine the outcome and condition
of historical and contemporary events. By reproducing and reshaping these social structures, events
themselves also function as ideological domains in which the interests of particular groups or entities
are realized (Fairclough, 1995:72). While social structures may refer to “political and economic
structures, relationships in the market, gender relations, relations within the state and within
institutions of civil society”, they “are most immediately of a discoursal/ideological nature”
(Fairclough, 1995:73). Accordingly, Dutch linguist Teun A. van Dijk does not limit the study of
9Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
ideology to linguistic structures but extends the discipline to involve other semiotic resources including
images, signs, sounds, film, gestures, and so on (Aljubouri, 2020:37). Discourse is not only
representative of such discoursal/extra-discoursal structures but is also — through the material effects
of ideology — constitutive of them, its subjects, and relations (Fairclough, 1995:73). The power to
regulate discourse is widely regarded as the power to maintain a particular set of discursive practices
“with particular ideological investments in dominance over alternative […] practices” (Fairclough,
1995:2).
What makes CDA a critical approach to discourse analysis is that it takes a contemptuous view
of ideology as a vehicle through which oppressive power structures are reproduced. These ideological
investments are especially effective in achieving domination through the preservation of patriarchal
norms and between marginalized ethnic and cultural groups (Fairclough, 1995:17-18). Ideologies,
according to Fairclough (1995:23), are most pervasive through naturalized implicit propositions or “in
the unsaid” and are deeply manifested in many aspects of individual and collective life, positioning
individuals as institutional subjects. Institutional subjects, explains Fairclough (1995:27), are
implicitly constructed in accordance with the norms of ideological-discursive formations (IDFs). IDFs
are described as “a sort of speech community”, and while several IDFs may exist within a single
institution at a time “there is usually one IDF that is clearly dominant” (Fairclough, 1995:27). A
common feature of dominant IDFs is the ability to naturalize and uphold ideological representations
or present dominant ideologies as “non-ideological common sense” (Fairclough, 1995:28).
Consequently, individuals are often unaware of the ideological practices they are subjected to
(Fairclough, 1995:23).
The ideological dimensions of hegemony can be conceptualized in terms of what Fairclough
(1995:12) calls orders of discourse or “the totality of discursive practices associated with a particular
social domain or institution, and boundaries and relationships between them”. For Italian philosopher
Antonio Gramsci, hegemony, or cultural hegemony, is understood as the domination and authority
over society and its political, economic, cultural, and ideological domains (Fairclough, 1995:76).
However, despite being understood as the leadership of one group over another, hegemony “is never
achieved more than partially or temporarily as an unstable equilibrium” (Fairclough, 1995:76).
Hegemony, then, is conceived not only as dominance but as the existence of competing elements which
endeavours to challenge prevailing ideological facets and establish new ones. By challenging dominant
meanings or orders of discourse, subjects are readily equipped with the resources to properly resist
structures that function to naturalize different ideological practices (Jørgensen, et al., 2002:76). Thus,
the concept of hegemony provides us with the capacity to analyse the relationship between discursive
10Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
practices and wider sociocultural practices involving oppressive power structures (Jørgensen, et al.,
2002:76). “[…] discursive practice can be seen as an aspect of a hegemonic struggle that contributes
to the reproduction and transformation of the order of discourse of which it is part” (Jørgensen, et al.,
2002:76).
In his critique of Western capitalism and the capitalist state, Gramsci makes a distinction
between two overlapping societal domains: a political society, which rules through coercive measures,
and a civil society, which is governed through consent. Civil society, according to Gramsci, was
understood not as the amalgamation of third sector organizations, but rather a sphere of “hegemonic
control of the dominant class” over the institutional domains of society including education, work,
religion, and the media (Fairclough, 1995:93). The mass media is a system designated for the
dissemination and distribution of symbols and messages to the general population. The primary
function of the media is to entertain, inform, and indoctrinate the public with value systems “that will
integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society” (Herman, 1988:1). In a world
characterized by class conflict and the unequal distribution of wealth, systematic propaganda is an
impetus for domination and manufactured consent (Herman, 1998:1).
IDFs are finely “tuned to the social structures and power relations within which the media
operate” (Fairclough, 1995:25). By presenting elitist discourse as common sense, the media as an
institution perpetuates and legitimizes the subjugation of marginalized ethnic and cultural groups
(Fairclough, 1995:63). The affiliation between the media and orders of discourse cultivates ideological
effects, obscures relations of domination, and naturalizes particular discursive practices as transparent
(Fairclough, 1995:25). In referring to French sociologist Jean Baudrillard, Fairclough explains that we
are currently living in a “hyperreality” insofar that “the distinction between image and reality has
collapsed” (Fairclough, 1995:16). As a result, a common misconception is that the media is somehow
a “mirror to reality” (Fairclough, 1995:64). These misconceptions are the direct result of the “dominant
ideological representations of reality” which are habitually framed as objective knowledge
(Fairclough, 1995:64).
2.2 Orientalism and Construction of the ‘Other’
This section will begin by describing the theory of Orientalism as imagined by Edward Said before
discussing the concept in terms of its relationship to colonial rule and notions of discourse, power-
knowledge, and ideology. Section 2.2.2 will focus on the concept of the Other in relation to Orientalism
and the mass media.
11Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
2.2.1 Orientalism: A Post-colonial Culture
Orientalism refers to “the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient” (Said, 1978:3); a scientific
discipline that boasts the critical understanding of Eastern cultures, societies, and customs since the
early 19th century. Secondly, Orientalism is widely conceptualized as an ideological mechanism and
the wellspring of stereotypical, racist, and imagined images of the ‘mystical’ East. However,
Orientalist attitudes should not be understood as something unique to Westerners or Western societies;
“just as there are Westerners who do not adopt the orientalist approach, there are also Easterners who
adopt it” (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:732).
In 1978, Edward Said’s seminal work Orientalism, considered to be a revolutionary study that
has made ground-breaking contributions to post-colonial theory, ventured to open a discussion into
Western-based “ontological and epistemological distinctions made between the Orient and […] the
Occident” (Aljubouri, 2020:8; Said, 1978:20). Through the application of Foucauldian
conceptualizations of power-knowledge, the colonial West and orientalist knowledge is recognized as
being in an intimate relationship that is essential to the domination, restructuring, and “authority over
the Orient” (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:733; Said, 1978:20). In order to comprehend the enormously
complex and intricate ideological implications of Orientalist scholarship, Orientalism must be
understood in terms of discourse (Said, 1978:20).
Although it was Foucault who provided Said with the theoretical framework to define the
power dynamics between knowledge about the Orient and (Western) authority over it, it was Gramsci’s
understanding of hegemony and hegemonic struggle which guided Said “in explaining why certain
ideas about the East dominate others” (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:733). Orientalist discourse is
[…] by no means in direct, corresponding relationship with political power in the raw, but rather is
produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power [emphasis added], shaped to
a degree by the exchange with power political (as with a colonial or imperial establishment), power
intellectual (as with reigning sciences like comparative linguistics or anatomy, or any of the modern
policy sciences), power cultural (as with orthodoxies and canons of taste, texts, values), power moral
(as with ideas about what "we" do and what "they" cannot do or understand as "we" do).
Figure 2: (Said, 1978:28)
With the help of these concepts, Said determined that Orientalist epistemes of Eastern cultures and
traditions were not objective knowledge, but rather subjective interpretations characterized by imperial
and geopolitical interests in the WANA (West Asia North Africa) region. Thus, Orientalism has been
referred to as “the accomplice of Western colonialism” which serves to maintain the asymmetrical
12Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
power relations between the colonizer and the subject race (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:733-734; Said,
1978:19)
2.2.2 Orientation Towards the Other
Various scholars including Foucault have used the Other in reference to those who challenge the status
quo and whose actions are regarded as socially deviant or abnormal. However, the Other can be
defined, in its simplest terms, as being “fundamentally different from us [emphasis added]” (Harle,
2000:10). Orientation towards the Other is essential to the functions of society insofar that self-identity
is defined by Otherness. “One cannot experience oneself as righteous […] without an unrighteous alter
ego against whom to compare oneself” (Harle, 2000:10-11). In other words, sociocultural themes are
dependent on and cannot exist without an antithesis (Harle, 2000:10).
Hence, the West has established its own identity in relation to the East. Orientalism, according
to Said (1978:43), is “ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference
between the familiar (Europe, the West, us) and the strange (the Orient, the East, them)”. Orientalism
can thus be defined as an ideological process that positions the West against the East by depicting the
Orient as wholly anti-Western. Therefore, the West presents itself as being “modern, progressive,
democratic, developmental, and individualistic” while presenting the East as “traditional,
underdeveloped, authoritarian” and “communitarian” (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:738).
Accordingly, media orders of discourse have played a significant role in the reproduction of
demeaning and overexaggerated stereotypes of Arab and Muslim identity “that lump together Islam
and terrorism, or Arabs and violence, or the Orient and tyranny” (Said, 1974:317). In films and
television, Arab identity and Arab characterization is associated with “lust, materialism, terrorism,
lethargy, folly, and character weakness; whereas Western identity and Western characterization is
associated with “democratic, sane, reliable, virtuous, and powerful images” (Türkoğlu, et al.,
2021:746-747). And while the distinction between us and them is often “definitional”, the relationship
between the Self and the Other has potentially violent and hostile sociocultural implications (Harle,
2000:11). One would have to look no further than the increased prejudices against Arabs and Muslims
following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 (Türkoğlu, et al., 2021:738-739). A more in-
depth analysis concerning the sociocultural implications of Orientalist discourse will be conducted in
Chapter 4 of this study.
13Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
2.3 Theory as an Analytical Tool
The theories discussed throughout this chapter will serve as an analytical lens whereby the
phenomenon under study will be measured. Whereas the first level of Fairclough’s three-dimensional
model will focus on a social semiotic description of the meaning-making material, i.e., Netflix film
and television programmes, theories surrounding power-knowledge, ideology, and hegemony in
relation to the mass media, and Orientalism, in synthesis with the concept of Otherization, will be
operationalized in the remaining two dimensions – discursive practice and sociocultural practice.
Hence, the material – which is at the same time the communicative event – will be measured based on
the extent to which it sustains hegemonic, ideologically motivated forms of knowledge and to the
degree in which these epistemes reproduce power asymmetries and structural inequalities. “the cultural
role played by the Orient in the West connects Orientalism with ideology, politics, and the logic of
power” (Said, 1978:39). Thus, Orientalism (as a discourse of power) has, within the context of material
chosen, been identified as the ideological tool conducive of the construction of the stereotyped Other
(Said, 1978:301).
14Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
III. Methodology
According to Creswell (2009:3), a research design incorporates 3 elements: the worldview assumption;
procedures of inquiry (strategies); and method. The study will follow Creswell’s definition of research
design, seeing as how it is the most comprehensive definition found within the course literature. In
terms of the philosophical world view, this study will follow the social constructivist worldview, which
is described as an inductive approach that emphasizes human interpretations of the social world
including the interpretations of the researcher (Creswell, 2009:8). Creswell (2009:8) explains that the
social constructivist worldview asserts that “the basic generation of meaning is always social”.
Similarly, Fairclough (1995:6) suggests that text, or discursive practices, “are social spaces in which
two […] social processes simultaneously occur: cognition and representation of the world, and social
interaction”. Considering that this study will not rely on the involvement of participants, the
construction of meaning will rely on the researcher’s interpretation of the data.
Procedures or strategies of inquiry is defined as the “types of qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods design… that provide specific direction for the procedures within a research design”
(Creswell, 2009:11). With that being said, the procedure of inquiry that will be employed throughout
this study is Norman Fairclough’s approach to critical discourse analysis (CDA). Fairclough’s
approach to CDA is a three-dimensional framework focusing on textual analysis, analysis of discursive
practice, and an analysis of wider sociocultural practices (Fairclough, 1995:2). Moreover, qualitative
research methods often employ the use of a theoretical lens (Creswell, 2009:176). In conjunction with
discourse theory as described by (Fairclough, 1995), the study will employ Edward Said’s theory on
Orientalism in synthesis with theories surrounding the construction of the Other as an analytical and
theoretical lens (Said, 1978), thereby helping to explicate the relationship between CDA theory and
Western attitudes of the Orient.
Method refers to ‘the forms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation that researchers
propose for their studies’ (Creswell, 2009:15). The data, which will be analysed and interpreted using
Fairclough’s approach to CDA, is a set of Netflix films and TV programmes, purposively chosen on
the basis of their thematic nature (films and programmes set in or relating to the Orient). Thus, the
study will be based on the visual and critical analysis of media. The data will consist largely of primary
data or ‘data that have been observed, experienced or recorded’ and is the ‘most immediate recording
of a situation’ (Walliman, 2017:77-78). Since the focal point of CDA is the critique and immediate
recording and observation of data, the material is deemed wholly primary. Foucault explains that
power manifests itself in all facets of the social world and discourse is the embodiment of power
15Stefan Maatouk 930901-0313
(Rainbow, 1984:192); hence, discourse analysis can be applied towards all forms of written or spoken
text.
Before embarking on the analysis, this chapter will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the
chosen method. Thereupon, a detailed outline of Norman Fairclough’s approach to CDA from a
methodological standpoint will be presented. As discussed in the Theoretical Framework, an important
difference between CDA and post-structural discourse theory is that CDA conceptualizes discourse as
being both constitutive and constituted. In other words, discourse is an important part of social practice
which both sustains and reshapes hegemonic ideological structures, social and power relations, and
social identities. “Thus, discourse is in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions”
(Jørgensen, et al., 2002:65). This study has chosen to conduct a CDA based on its application of
interrelated concepts including the power-knowledge paradigm, ideology, hegemony, and its
relationship to media orders of discourse, which is a principal focus in regard to this study.
Secondly, while CDA was first conceptualized as a linguistically oriented method, this chapter
aims at highlighting the interdisciplinary, multimodal approach to CDA “that deals with all types of
discourse, including some of the semiotic resources employed in many aspects of media,
advertisements, education, cinema, and the like” (Aljubouri, 2020:30).
Thirdly, section 3.3 of this chapter, will provide an opportunity to discuss the choice of
material, ending with a reflection concerning the strengths and limitations of the chosen research
design.
3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses
There exist several strengths when applying this method, especially in its application towards the
collection of audio-visual materials, insofar that the process is nonobtrusive, allows the
participants/researchers to share his/her own interpretation of reality, and ‘creative in that it captures
attention visually’ (Creswell, 2009:180). And while primary data is often difficult to acquire
(Walliman, 2017:78), CDA makes the possibility of obtaining data for analysis uniquely accessible.
The strength of such a method is that it helps researchers understand social phenomena that are
mediated by hegemonic ideologies and asymmetrical power structures, sustained by dominant orders
of discourse or ‘the totality of discursive practices associated with a particular domain or institution’
(Fairclough, 1995:1-10). Another strength of qualitative research design is that it provides researchers
with the opportunity to conduct an in-depth, detailed, and nuanced study into various phenomena.
Lastly, a qualitative research design presents researchers with the chance to reveal the more implicit
16You can also read
