Investigation #11 Discourse and Power

Having a deeper look into the internal messages (Investigation #4) and the after-class conversation (Investigation #8) of the language centre that I am working in, I find a clearer picture of the power relationships among participants and in the broader social order.

After considering the eight key principles of CDA by Fairclough and Wodak, I found a few common features that my investigation site shared with the principles. Firstly, power within this company is negotiated in the company discourse. People in different positions are given various titles which signal the level of power they have among the staff. For instance, there is a Headmaster, school principal, academic manager, academic panels, senior lecturers and part time tutors etc. All these titles help constitute a clear power relationship between the staff. However, all of these are made sense based on the presupposition the members have for the power level of these titles.

As shown in the after-class conversation, subordinates tend to respect the higher power by showing willingness to involve and giving preferred responses. In most of the circumstances, only those with higher power dare interrupt in a conversation. We can see that the social assumption of the need for the junior to respect the senior is reinforced. The ideology of higher power gets more respect is then enforced.

The word use in the internal message also signifies the power relationship between the employer and the employees. From the message regarding the bulleting intranet website, phrases like ‘we will use the bulletin board to inform you… please check and reply… everyday to get yourself updated’ reveal the assumption that the employer tries to pass on to the employees. Part time staff who are supposed to work only on weekends are expected to be responsible for job duties beyond their working hour. It is also the employees’ responsibilities to ‘get themselves updated’ with the company’s latest condition. By replying the message, employees have agreed on the identities and responsibilities that the higher power have imposed on them.

Although most of the members tend to accept and act on assumptions and ideologies come with the power relationships, there are two kinds of people who resist following these insider ‘rules’. The first group is the foreign native speakers; they express their ideas freely without pay much attention to the hierarchy. Nevertheless, they are not seen as being impolite or uncooperative since most of the senior staff are well-aware of the cultural difference Asians and Westerners have. Another group is those local staff who have bargaining power, for instance , the law students. They are seen to be more favourable for company’s reputation as the society carries an assumption that law students are more brilliant and out-standing. Therefore, these law-major part time staff do not always follow the ‘rules’ associated with the power relationship.

From the analysis done based on the context of my investigation site, the power relationship in the broader social order is also reflected. The titles given to different positions constitute a distinctive hierarchy and hence, a clearer power relationship among the members. Ideologies and social assumptions are reinforced. Subordinates mostly respect the higher power and use the independence face strategies to show their respect to them. People who have higher bargaining power could resist this; just like when you were Stanley Ho having so much influencing power, you would not care much about what title the others have and be restricted by the power relationship.