Challenging terrain

In reading some of the pages leading up to and including the conclusion of Hall et al I was drawn to the references to field, practice, discourse and their interrelation (which I suppose in itself reproduces the subject of the collaborative writing). So far I have been considering a field of practice as a distinctive and self-contained entity (see that I have automatically linked field to practice which in itself supports the more sophisticated approach of the paper), whereas the authors suggest that as well as being constructed through theory and work (either a research field such as ethnography or a subject field such as media studies), concepts of language, subjectivity and discourse might be considered fields. They go on to take this further in considering fields of effects and relations. What I draw from this is that rather than mapping a field one might be mapping a range of inter-connected fields relating to research approaches, the subject, discourse and language each with their own relations and effects.

Hall, S. et al. (1980) Culture, Media and Language: working papers in cultural studies. London, Unwin Hyman.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s