impact on the very composition of the utterances people produce – utterances which in turn become data for analysts’ empirical endeavours – are not ade-
quately explored. And this raises a broader concern with Foucauldian and post- structuralist discourse analyses of talk: that utterances whose design is claimed
to bear the imprint of discourses, or reflect the relevance of subject positions, may in fact be shaped by the participants’ orientation to interactional contin-
gencies generated out of the turn-by-turn unfolding of talk-in-interaction.
METHODOLOGICAL DISPUTES 185
9
Conversation Analysis and Power
Conversation analysis has always had an uneasy relationship with its parent discipline, sociology. This is because its distinctive methodology – specifically
its rejection of premature theorising – and its focus on the detailed analysis of the organisation of interaction as a topic in its own right, has led its critics to
argue that it fails to address the range of issues traditionally studied by sociolo- gists. Thus it does not try to conceptualise its data in terms of the theoretical
stances currently influential in the discipline. Furthermore, it does not try to make links between the micro-phenomena of interaction and what might be
called macro-level order, in which relations of power, the role of ideologies and the influence of history and cultural values are said to operate.
This critique has become more pronounced in the past twenty-five years as researchers in other disciplines have become interested in what were once
taken to be distinctly sociological concerns. For example, many critical social psychologists have been influenced by the writings of Foucault, Marxism and
various other theoretical perspectives, and are now concerned with broadly the role of power in contemporary society amongst other things; and critical
discourse analysts, whose primary disciplinary base is linguistics, are research- ing the relationship between communication and ideologies. As the influence
of the ‘sociological agenda’ Hutchby, 1999: 85 has spread across related social science disciplines, so the community of scholars for whom CA is per-
ceived to offer an inadequate account of macro-phenomena has grown.
It is untrue, however, to assume that conversation analysts have simply ignored the sociological agenda. To illustrate, in this chapter we will examine
three areas of conversation analytic work which forge links between the inter- actional order and traditional macro social science concerns. In the following
sections we will review a study of market traders’ sale pitches, the findings from which suggest some forms of social control derive their power from the
web of interactional obligations and expectations which inform sales encoun- ters. We will then discuss an analysis of the talk between host and callers in
radio talk shows, which examines the operation of power in the normative
organisation of turn-taking in institutional settings. And finally we will look at recent attempts by feminist researchers to develop the tools of CA to explore
the interactional basis for the production of gendered identities. What becomes apparent is that conversation analysis offers a distinctive perspective
on issues of power and social control.
Interaction, social control and the economic order
In the mid-1980s Colin Clark and Trevor Pinch conducted a series of studies of the verbal strategies of market pitchers: traders who sell goods from a stall,
usually at open air markets Clark and Pinch, 1986, 1988; Pinch and Clark, 1986. Drawing from conversation analysis, their approach was to investigate
selling as an interactional achievement. They were interested in the commu- nicative techniques by which market pitchers recruited an audience from
passing members of the public, kept their attention, and then managed to persuade them to buy the goods on sale. What were the features of the pitchers’
sales discourse which ensured it was difficult for members of the audience to walk away without having made a purchase? In this sense, Clark and Pinch
were interested in social control: how did the market pitchers use language to control the economic decisions and subsequent purchase actions of their
audience?
In their 1988 paper, Clark and Pinch explicitly frame their work in relation to the wider assumption in macro-sociology that micro-sociological approaches,
such as conversation analysis, are unable to address concerns relating to power relationships. They argue that,
[a]lthough power may have been neglected in micro-studies we would claim that there is no reason why micro-analysis
per se cannot address this topic. Indeed, we hope in this paper to demonstrate one way in which social
control is effected and a ‘power relationship’ constituted… . Clark and Pinch, 1988: 120
So, how is a power relationship constituted interactionally in this setting? We will discuss a number of findings from Clark and Pinch’s research.
Establishing the value of the goods
One of the main tasks facing a market pitcher is to persuade the audience that the sale price represents good value. One common way by which pitchers
achieved this was by building a contrast between the alleged value of the goods and the actual price at which they were being sold. For example, in
extract 9.1 the pitcher is selling a large quantity of meat.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 187
9.1 From Pinch and Clark, 1986: 172–3. ‘P’ is the pitcher. In this and
extracts 9.2 to 9.4 some features of the original transcription have been changed to make the text more readable.
P: ‘ere I’ve gotta piece o’ braisin’ beef ‘ere or roastin’ beef whatever yuh
want can anybody us that? 0.5
[Hands raised in audience.] P:
’ere y’are 0.3 quick 0.9 just’ ave a look a’ that 0.5 not an ounce o’ waste on it look a’ that. . beautiful 0.4 braisin’
or roastin’ beef 0.4’ ere, 0.3 that little lot twenty one fifty one an’ sharp quickly
0.3 gimme a tenner fer the lot
Note how the pitcher draws attention to the quality of the meat, then implies that it is worth £21.51; then, after a short gap, he announces the actual sale
price, £10, which is considerably less. The sharp contrast between the two prices has many inferential benefits: the audience may feel they are being
offered good value for money, and a rare chance to take advantage of such a reduced price. In this way the pitcher is organising a crucial part of his sales
pattern around a contrast structure, a device common to many forms of per- suasive discourse which is used to manage the actions and inferences of the
audience or recipient Atkinson, 1984a, 1984b; Smith, 1978.
Inverting the normative basis of sales relationships
Clark and Pinch argue that the power relationship between pitcher and audi- ence is also constituted in the way that the language of the pitcher draws upon
and inverts conventions associated with everyday sales transactions, such as those which occur in shops Clark and Pinch, 1988. Consider the following
extract: the pitcher has just sold a number of china vases for £2 each. He then tries to persuade his audience to buy the remainder of the vases by stating that
he will sell them at less than £2.
9.2 From Clark and Pinch, 1988: 121. ‘A1’, ‘A2’ etc. are members of
the audience directly involved in purchasing goods; ‘As’ refers to the entire audience at the stall.
P: ’an’ oo’s gonna buy the other one an’ ah’ll make the buggers
cheaper than two quid? Come on? 1.5
P: Come on?
1.7 P:
’oo’s gonna buy the other set? 1.2
[A1 raises hand.] P:
Lady here. 1.7
188 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
P: An’ ’oo’s ’avin’ the very very
[A2 raises hand.] P:
gen’elman there. 0.5 Knock ’em all the profit off 0.3
[BANG] one ninety-nine an’ a ’alf . Now then ’ere y’are.
[Throws goods down to pitch crew – they are then exchanged for money from A1 and A2.]
As: [Laughs.]
P: Theh wasn’t a lot of -, 0.9, there wasn’t a lot of profit on them
ah’ll tell yuh now As:
[Laughs.]
Eventually, the pitcher recruits two willing purchasers from his audience and then sells the vases at only half a penny less than the original selling price; this
is the smallest reduction possible given the currency denominations at the time. In effect, then, the pitcher has been able to sell two additional vases but
for almost exactly the same price as he had originally charged. How has the pitcher achieved this for him favourable outcome?
Clark and Pinch use this extract to illustrate how normal conventions asso- ciated with sales transactions are flouted in the sales routines of market pitchers.
So, in everyday transactions, it is the buyer who initiates transactions, for example, by expressing an intent to purchase, or by taking goods to a till. In
market selling it is the pitchers who attempt to initiate a transaction by extolling the quality and value of the goods on offer. In extract 9.2 the pitcher
initiates a transaction by announcing the price reduction of the goods on offer. This inducement is packaged in the form of a question: ‘ ’an ’oo’s gonna buy
the other one an’ ah’ll make the buggers cheaper than two quid?’, and subse- quent reiterations: ‘Come on? 1.5 Come on? 1.7 ’oo’s gonna buy the other
set?’. This question and its subsequent reiterations works in that it solicits a commitment to purchase from two members of the audience.
In routine sales encounters, customers know the price of the goods before the point of sale; but in extract 9.2 it is clear that the sale price is disclosed
after the sale has been agreed. Why would anyone commit to a purchase before they know the price? The two members of the audience show their
intent to buy after being informed only that the price will be less than £2. But
there are grounds to believe that they expect that the price will be consider- ably lower. Clark and Pinch argue that the audience members’ interpretation
of the pitcher’s offer to sell the vases ‘cheaper’ is informed by the cultural con- vention that in these contexts this means a significant price reduction. This
expectation is evidenced by the laughter which follows the pitcher’s disclo- sure that the reduction is only half a penny. Moreover, prior to disclosing the
actual selling price the pitcher says he will ‘Knock ’em all the profit off’: that is, sell the goods at cost price. This reinforces the assumption that the subse-
quent price will be a considerable reduction, and increases the likelihood of a commitment to purchase.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 189
Eventually the pitcher announces the new price and the sale proceeds, despite the fact that the audience members who signalled an intent to purchase
did not get the bargain they clearly had expected. But this raises a puzzle: so why buy goods now that they did not want just moments before, and at prac-
tically the same price? Why not refuse to go through with the sale? Why not take the pitcher to account for deceiving them as to the nature of the reduc-
tion that he intended to make?
First, the purchasers have been required to signal their intent to buy before the announcement of the actual price. Raising their hands thus constitutes
‘purchase implicative commitments’ Clark and Pinch, 1988: 125 which act as obligations to carry through the transaction. Second, Clark and Pinch con-
sider the role of humour: the ‘joke’ that the actual reduction was only half a penny. This joke is clearly at the expense of the two members of the audience
who evidently thought they were getting the vase at a price lower than that paid by others just moments before. The laughter is thus predicated on their
implied greed, and displays alignment with the pitcher, in that it is he who has artfully orchestrated their purchase at almost the same price. This characteri-
sation of their actions and the laughter it subsequently generates constitutes an environment in which a complaint or refusal to pay would be hard to
sustain. The pitcher thus uses humour as a resource in the interactional management of selling goods.
Constituting obligations to buy
In extract 9.1 the pitcher seeks indication of intent to purchase before the actual point of the sale. Through this he is able to generate the relevance of
an obligation to buy. Clark and Pinch note that establishing this commitment is an important feature of the market pitcher’s sale routine – indeed, they sug-
gest that few routines proceed without an attempt to establish purchase implicative expressions from the audience 1988: 126. This can be managed
in subtle ways. In this extract the pitcher is selling sets of pens.
9.3 From Clark and Pinch, 1988: 126
P: ah won’t charge yuh five ninety-five 0.8 ah won’t even charge
yuh three ninety-five or one ninety-five, 0.3 in fact ah’m not even chargin’ look, 0.5 a pound and ten pence for all the five of
’em. 0.4 Now ’oo can use ’em if ah go a bit lower, 0.3 than a pound tenpence? . Raise an ’and?
[Many audience members raise hands.]
P: One, . two, . three, . four AH CAN ONLY DO IT FER SO
MANY . five, six, seven, . eight, nine, anybody at the back? 0.3 Ten, . eleven. 0.3 Here’s what ah’ll do with yeh FIRST
come first served, 0.4 ALL the five of ’em yeh must have fifteen pounds worth uh pens 0.3
[CLAP] ah’ll tek a pound the whole jolly lot … [Sale occurs.]
190 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Eventually he sets the price at a pound, but seeks expressions of interest well before the actual sale occurs. As in the previous extract, here the pitcher asks
a question ‘Now ’oo can use ’em if ah go a bit lower, 0.3 than a pound ten- pence?’, and then explicitly asks for interested parties to raise their hands. But
this question is not designed to solicit expressions of intent to buy; ‘’oo can use ’em if ah go a bit lower,’ merely asks the audience to consider their potential
attractiveness at an as yet unspecified price. Thus the audience at this stage is asked for expressions of interest in the goods, as opposed to a firm intent to
buy. But even merely expressing interest has important consequences, in that it transpires that all those who show interest subsequently end up making a
purchase. In this way a non-committal show of interest is ultimately taken by both parties to have an unequivocal ‘purchasing-implicative and purchasing-
obligative component’ Clark and Pinch, 1988: 127.
But there is another reason why pitchers like to see expressions of interest in the form of raised hands: it allows them to incorporate the audiences’ physical
responses into their subsequent turns in the on-going sales routine, and in such a way as to maximise the likelihood of mass purchases. Note that in extract 9.3
the pitcher counts all those who have raised arms. However, this extract comes from a video recording which shows the audience. Thus Clark and Pinch are
able to report that the pitcher actually counts to a higher number than there are arms in the air. By exaggerating the number engaged in purchase-implicative
actions, the pitcher displays his understanding that selling in that context has an imitative element: people are more likely to buy goods if they see others
buying them. This is not unique to this extract; it is a common practice among market pitchers. And this strategy seems to work. With respect to this sequence,
Clark and Pinch point out that the video data show that people who had not initially raised their hands also subsequently bought the goods.
Clark and Pinch argue that there is a common theme in the routines of market pitchers: it is that they engineer a gap between soliciting interest or intent
to buy and the actual sale, or what they call the Sale Relevance Place SRP. The SRP is invariably that point when the pitcher announces the actual price,
and is often accompanied by clapping or banging on the stall. Clark and Pinch argue that this time between expression of interest and the SRP is important
for the pitcher. It allows him or her time in which interactionally to constitute what may be initially equivocal expressions of interest into firm commitments
to buy. And as we saw in the last extract, it allows them to work on those who have not expressed any interest to buy; for example, by artificially inflating the
numbers in the audience engaged in purchase-implicative actions to exploit the others’ imitative purchasing impulses. In the final extract from their study, we
can observe another technique by which pitchers exploit the delay between the expression of interest and the SRP to engineer a strong likelihood of mass pur-
chases by the audience. In this sequence the pitcher is selling perfumes. During this sale he occasionally breaks from talking to the audience to speak to his
assistant, one of the ‘pitch crew’, here referred to as ‘PC’.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 191
9.4 From Clark and Pinch, 1988: 128
P: now ’oo can use . all the four of ’em, 0.7 fer the purposes of
the advertisement, 0.9 theh’ve got tuh be cleared cheaply an’ quickly. 0.3 ’oo can use all the four of ’em, 0.5 twenty three
pounds w’th, 0.4 at less than three fifty raise an ’arm [Many audience members raise hands.]
0.8
P: Anyone else? 0.5 now as- 0.3
Now listen Rick ][To PC]
0.5 P:
the first eighteen people wi’ their ’and in the air, 0. will yuh please step forward. … now look
0.6 P:
give every one o’these people wi’ ]
their ’ands up in the air a ][To PC]
carrier ]
0.4 P:
Ah’m givin’ out eighteen carriers an’ that’s it
Note that after soliciting expression of interest the pitcher asks his assistant to hand out a carrier to each person with a raised hand. Obviously the implica-
tion is that these carriers will be used to hold the goods being sold; acceptance of the carrier thus establishes a strong obligation to see through the sale and
make a purchase. But to minimise the likelihood of anyone rejecting the car- rier, the pitcher simply instructs his assistant to hand them out. The audience
is not offered a choice as to whether they want a carrier or not. This minimises the likelihood of anyone rejecting a carrier, which would constitute a weak-
ening of the obligation eventually to make a purchase.
The pitcher’s sales strategy is premised on the assumption that goods do not sell themselves; some discursive intervention is necessary. Clark and Pinch’s research
shows that the verbal strategies of the market pitchers seem remarkably success- ful in ensuring that audience members buy the goods on offer. But this is not to
say that the audience members are being duped, or that they are acting foolishly. People would not buy the goods unless they were convinced that they were
getting value for their money. They can always walk away, and at any moment. Indeed, as Clark and Pinch show, although the audience members may not be as
familiar with the practices of market selling as the traders, they are nonetheless active participants in this sales encounter. But the traders do have important
resources by which to manage the audience’s interpretations of the value of the goods contrasting the actual price with an alleged value; and to encourage
purchase-implicative actions asking interested parties to raise their hands; and to engender purchase-obligative orientations handing out bags; and to anticipate
and defuse potential hostility from disgruntled customers the use of humour. These and other interactional resources allow pitchers some control over the
purchasing decisions of their audience, and the outcome of their sales patter.
192 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
