Angenot and Pêcheux: Theoretical Foundations and Methodological Drifts
This paper presents a comparative analysis of Michel Pêcheux’s and Marc Angenot’s discourse theories by arguing that the main difference between them lies on the shift from a vertical determination model rooted on class antagonism to a horizontal regulation system operating on the totality of social...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. Facultad de Humanidades
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/nea/article/view/8903 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This paper presents a comparative analysis of Michel Pêcheux’s and Marc Angenot’s discourse theories by arguing that the main difference between them lies on the shift from a vertical determination model rooted on class antagonism to a horizontal regulation system operating on the totality of social discursivity.
Indebted to Althusserian Marxism, Pêcheux’s framework understands discourse as the effect of class struggle materialized in language. Its theoretical apparatus articulates the ideological formation, which determines the discursive formation, with the asymmetrical relationship between interdiscourse (the memory of antagonism) and intradiscourse (the thread of speech). The subject is an effect of the ideological interpellation constituted through mechanisms like the preconstructed, which presents the product of the forces’ relation as its evidence. Pêcheux’s analysis aims to unveil contradiction and ideological subjection.
Conversely, Marc Angenot focuses on social discourse: the totality of the utterable in a society. His key concept is the idea of discursive hegemony, which is a global anonymous regulating system that, through the topos and doxa (shared presuppositions and beliefs), guarantees the cohesion and inter-legibility of all discourses, even antagonistic ones. His focus lies not on determination, but on regulation; not on contradiction, but on coherence. In sum, the exploration concludes that Pêcheux offers tools to analyze conflict, while Angenot provides a framework for understanding consensus and social cohesion. |
|---|