Critical discourse analysis on Hunger by Shawn Basey

To understand our age, our age's ways of thinking, disciplines and our society, it is necessary to understand what discourse is. After the discovery of discourse, there is no longer universal reality, there are realities. Reality is what is constructed in and within discourse. Every discourse is a construction of reality; therefore, realities are now corresponding to the discourses (Sözen, 2017: 9). What determines our actions and makes our life meaningful or understandable are language and social realities built in the language. Natural and social reality are not just natural sciences or law, medicine, psychiatry and economics. They are the realities constructed by medicine, economics, psychiatry, and natural sciences, because every reality is based on a discourse. However, not all realities are realities constructed by scientific disciplines or discourses. In society, there are discourses other than the discourses of the elites and therefore there are other realities constructed by these discourses. Different realities are structured by differentiated language practices, that is, discourses, corresponding to different forms of knowledge. Discourses, which are actions and linguistic practices, are based on different ideologies, expressions, and statements. All these linguistic acts are forms of oral/written communication rooted in the past or present. Discourse plays an indispensable role in the reproduction of ideologies and daily expressions (Dijk,V., 2003: 13). According to Van Dijk, relations at the group and institutional level of society are ideological and ideologies have the power to influence and explain these relations. Ideology is also in daily life and has the power to determine human consciousness in daily life. According to Van Dijk, we must first grasp the insight of their mental or cognitive dimension to explain the true nature of ideologies and their relationship with social practices and discourse. Traditional concepts such as 'false consciousness' and common sense, or daily concepts such as ideas, remain too vague to be sufficient to describe what kind of mental objects ideologies are. It is possible to state that Dijk found Marx and Engels' definition of ideology inadequate at this stage. Just as we do not speak individual languages, we do not have individual ideologies. So, ideologies consist of common social beliefs, not personal thoughts (Dijk V., 2003: 20). Ideology is a form of social cognition; more precisely, they are the fundamental beliefs that underlie the social representations of a social group (Dijk, V., 2003: 26). Ideologies can be clearly expressed and therefore easily recognized. However, this can also occur in a rather indirect or implicit way, in less obvious structures of discourse, such as intonation, pauses or the use of a pronoun (Dijk V., 2003: 55). Discourses surround ideologies, but they need to be interpreted. The reason for existence of interpretation is discourse, and a discourse without commentary is nothing. Discourse, despite all this, is not a starting point, an ultimate basis or a zero point, because there is no zero point or zero points. It is something created by the relationships that make discourse a discourse. It is not these relations and connections themselves; discourse is always more than these relations. The functions of discourses are knowledge, power, domination, authority and control, and all of these come into existence in language (Sözen, 2017: 10). The use of knowledge, power and ideology in language is an act of language, and their functionality only becomes meaningful within a discourse. Even expressions that seem meaningless in our daily conversations are elements that have meaning and function in a discourse. The actions of not saying what you know and making evasive statements about subjects you do not know do not have a meaning on their own, but they have a meaning within the discourse. What makes discourses understandable is where, when and how narratives, expressions and statements appear, and the identity of the discourse actors who use the discourses. What makes the discourse understandable are the actors who use it. Fairclough attributes an important role in discourse. It also contributes to the shaping and reproduction and transformation of structures. These structures have a discursive/ideological nature. It is not merely representational in its relations to structures and relations. It is also a component. Ideology has material effects, and discourse contributes to the creation and constant re-creation of the relationships, subjects and objects that populate the social world (Fairclough, 2003: 159). Therefore, language is a basic tool that carries thought and ideology (Matheson, 2005: 5). Discourse is a form of linguistic action. Although it is not limited to the language used by the speaker, it also includes ongoing communication, linguistic rules and traditions (Hartley, 2002: 73). Thus, language, discourse and ideology appear as a basic concept that can not be handled alone. They are intertwined and have a basic function in social guidance. In other words, ideology concretely/materially determines people in daily life. Discourse locates and deploys individuals. The discourse is ideological (Özer, 2011: 56). According to Fairclough, ideology is deployed both in structures that are a product of past events and constitute the conditions of current events, and in events that reproduce and transform their own conditioned structures. According to him, in the use of the concept of discourse, it can be stated that language use coincides with social relations and processes that systematically determine changes in its characteristics, including the linguistic forms that appear in texts. The language in question is a material form of ideology and language is surrounded by ideology (Fairclough, 2003: 158). In fact, Fairclough's statements are so clear that; ideology is contained in language, and language is surrounded by ideology. The point that should be noted is that discourse is shaped by structures. Critical discourse analysis is founded on 'critical linguistics' as it centers on the conceptualization of language as discourse and, more clearly, positions critical language analysis in social sciences (Fairclough, 1989 as cited in Fairclough and Graham, 2003: 188-189). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis have both been shaped by Marxism, particularly 20th-century Western Marxism (Fairclough, Wodak, 1997 as cited in Fairclough and Graham, 2003). According to Van Dijk, critical discourse analysis is primarily interested in the discursive dimensions of inequality, injustice and abuse of power that arise or result from the discourse itself (Dijk V., 1993: 252). Power involves the cognitive control that affects the mind and the action of a group and its members over other groups, which includes restricting others' freedom of action. The modern and most effective power is cognitive, and it is the one aimed at persuading, directing, and making others think against their own interests. While some mental manipulation may be done overtly, it may be subtly reproduced routinely through seemingly natural daily conversations and texts. Critical discourse analysis must focus on discursive strategies of legitimate systems of control, naturalization of social order, and especially relations of inequality (Dijk V., 1993: 254). Critical discourse analysis involves both language and semiotic forms such as body language or visual images, and therefore it is the analysis of the dialectical relationship between discourse and other elements of social practices. The main focus in Fairclough's approach is on the radical changes taking place in contemporary social life, how discourse is defined in processes of change, and shifts in the relations between semiotic processes and other social elements in the network structure of practices. According to him, the role of discourse in social practices should not be accepted as it is but should be established through analysis. Discourse may be more or less important in another practice or set of practices, and its importance may change over time (Fairclough, 2003a: 174). This thesis aims to reveal the ideology of the author and the action or actions he wants to carry out with his words by making a critical discourse analysis of three stories named A Pale Death, Frozen and That Hidden Darkness in Shawn Basey's Hunger. In this context, Basey's stories address 'how people find themselves in a difficult situation in the face of hunger and their submission to the order in desperation', 'the struggle for survival', 'the effects of hunger on the human body and life', 'the cruel face of war' and 'faith'. Keywords: Literary Discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis, Ideology, Canibalism, Hunger, Shawn Basey.