Colinisation of Discourse

Colonisation of Discourse


Mr Fairclough (some years ago) defines the Colonisation of Discourse as the event in which some particular discourses—topics of consideration—are paid attention to over other discourses for particular reasons other than the worthiness of those particular discourse themselves.


Why? That’s simple! The one who speaks first wins. Because the one who speaks first gets heard first, and the thing spoken becomes the matter first. Likewise, for people around him, what heard first becomes the matter first and perceived the first priority for considerations. This is because the perception of human itself ARRANGES things in its own timeline and put forward different levels of importance to different positions in that timeline.


Thereafter, the positions on the psychological timeline affect its surroundings in ways that, first of all, there comes juxtaposition of different positions of discourse which brings about appropriate reasons for being in different positions. What Dibrini sees is that human always try to rationalise things in front of them, and only things in the front of them—mind the POSITION. Then, for that appropriate reason of the discourse position, human concern for the contexts of each and particular discourse and think those contexts make different positions of discourse. Why? It’s HUMAN ESSENCE!


So, the Colonisation of Discourse is actually the colonisation of human interpretation regardless of what the contexts of discourse are, regardless of whose, when and where the discourse is, and regardless of what those discourses are all about.


Only when human stop concerning with other contexts and irrelevant variable (which they think is relevant) of discourses, then there would be no more Colonisation of Discourse.

BEAUTY

Beauty


Beauty can be goodness or perfection not only for visual perception but any kind of perception that human are capable of.


Beauty for different people can be different things even though there seem to be some standard forced to what beauty really is. For example, the Sleeping Beauty seems to represent the standard beauty of all women. At the same time, this standard of beauty dominates other aspects of beauty with its elements.


Beauty is actually the colonisation of discourse. Because what counts as beauty and what doesn’t is determined by the hegemonic group within a society, the voice of the other group in the society with less power on discourse doesn’t have its say about what beauty is.


For example, Beauty in communication is considered to the “two-way symmetrical” communication. J. E. Grunig is the father of the two-way symmetrical communication who defines his invention as the communication in which the needs of both (or all) parties are equally satisfied. On the other hand, E. L. Toth may argue that beauty in communication is the stage in which communication produces the most cash value for the communicator. Now whose communication is a beauty?


Therefore, beauty, like reality and the scientific and philosophical core essence of the world, is again not static but shifting and unstable in regards to human interpretation which is also unstable in regards to many thing else around them.