… role structured, institutionalised, and omnirelevant asymmetries between participants in terms of such matters as differential distribution of
knowledge, rights to knowledge, access to conversational resources, and to participation in the interaction. Drew and Heritage, 1992b: 49
Hutchby focuses on the use of the word ‘asymmetry’ in this passage and won- ders if its neutral connotations adequately capture the differentials in social
power suggested by phrases such as ‘rights to act in certain ways’ and ‘access to conversational resources’ Hutchby, 1999: 89. He goes on to argue that con-
versation analysts should not be reluctant to consider the extent to which their work captures power relations in the analysis of the organisation of interaction.
This is not to say that Hutchby rejects CA’s strong methodological princi- ples: he supports Schegloff’s argument that it is risky to assume the operation
of power prior to empirical analysis because it invites the analyst to ‘discover’ power relations in talk wherever she may look. Nor does he assume that social
interaction is merely a screen on which are reflected pre-existing power rela- tionships. He argues that ‘the sequential structures out of which the differen-
tial distributions of resources emerge are not a natural but an
oriented-to feature of the interaction’ Hutchby, 1999: 90; original italics. We can illus-
trate his argument by looking at some of his analytic work on interaction on talk radio shows.
In talk radio shows members of the public are invited to ring the studio and talk to the presenter live on air to offer their opinions on the topics of that
day’s programme. To make the show more interesting to its audience, the hosts may adopt a position of professional scepticism with regard to the caller’s
opinions, for example, taking an oppositional stance regardless of their own personal views. Hosts thus try to engender some element of confrontation.
Who has the power in these confrontations? Initially, it might seem that the balance of power rests with the callers. Talk radio shows are explicitly
advertised as vehicles in which the members of the public can express their
views and have them broadcast nationally, or to more local communities. Moreover, the caller knows what they are going to say. The presenter may
have some idea of the kind of point a next caller might make callers may have to outline the purpose of the call to an assistant prior to being con-
nected to the host, and the programme may be concerned with a limited range of topics. But the host does not know
exactly what the caller is going to say. In this sense, the host would seem to be at a disadvantage. Finally, it is a
routine feature of talk radio shows that callers get the first chance to offer an opinion. The following extracts come from Hutchby’s study of a nationally
broadcast talk radio show in the United Kingdom. Note that the host’s turn announces the next caller, where they are calling from, and offers a greeting.
The callers return the greeting, and then immediately begin to talk about the point they wish to make. The following discussion draws from Hutchby’s
extended 1996a account.
194 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
9.5 From Hutchby, 1996a: 42; ‘H’ is the host, ‘C’ the caller
1 H: Bob is calling from Ilford. Good morning.
2 C: ·hh Good morning Brian. 0.4 ·hh What I’m phoning
3 up is about the cricket …
9.6 From Hutchby, 1996a: 43
1 H: Mill Hill:: i:s where Belinda calls from. Good
morning. 3
C: Good morning Brian. ·hh Erm, re the Sunday o:pening I’m just phoning from the point of
vie:w ·hh as a:n assistant …
Because callers have the ‘first go’ they are in a position to set the agenda for the subsequent discussion with the host. Moreover, there is an expectation
that callers should establish the topical agenda in their first turn in the call.
9.7 From Hutchby, 1996a: 47
1 H:
Jo:hn next. 2
. 3
C: He
= Hello?
4 H:
Hello John in: Marylebone. 5
C: Er, hello er, your- your people didn’t give me
6 any wa:rning er. . Okay. ·h
7 H:
Well I said hello: 8
you’re John now that was the warning now what 9
d’you have to say. 10
C: Right. Erm . i:t’s about the dogs …
In this extract the caller’s first opportunity to make his point comes after the host’s introduction ‘Jo:hn next.’, but instead he merely checks the line. After
the host reissues the introduction, the caller offers an account for not moving straight to his topic-initiating turn lines 5 and 6, which, of course, constitutes
another delay in its eventual production, a fact recognised by the host’s rather testy encouragement lines 7 to 9.
It would seem that the callers have some degree of control over the pro- ceedings which is not available to the hosts. However, Hutchby argues that
because callers are expected to set the topical agenda they are in fact, para- doxically, in a vulnerable and relatively powerless position. Drawing on earlier
CA work on arguments, he argues that those who go second in an argument are in a powerful position because they can oppose an expressed opinion or view-
point simply by taking it apart. Successful opposition does not require an alter- native argument. Consequently, those who go first are in a weaker position, as
they may be called upon to defend their argument. In radio talk shows, it is the
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 195
关
callers who ‘go first’ and offer a position or an argument. Hosts ‘go second’, and thus find it relatively easy to challenge the caller, or to express scepticism; and
that as a consequence, callers are forced to adopt a more defensive posture. Hutchby notes various ways in which hosts can exploit the advantage of
going second in talk radio discussions. They can question the relevance of the caller’s argument or position in relation to their own agenda by asking ques-
tions such as ‘So?’ or ‘What’s that got to do with it?’. In the following extract, the caller has been complaining that telethons and unsolicited requests for
charitable donations represent a form of psychological blackmail.
9.8 From Hutchby, 1996a: 51
1 C:
I have got three appeals letters here this week 2
0.4 All a:skin’ for donations. 0.2 hh Two: 3
from tho:se that I: always contribute to 4
anywa:y 5
H: Yes?
6 C:
hh But I expect to get a lot mo:re 7
H: So?
8 C:
h now the point is there is a limi t to 9
H: What’s that got
10 to do- what’s that got to do with telethons though
11 C:
hh Because telethons … Continues
Hutchby notes that the host’s ‘So?’ line 7 proposes that the caller’s point at that moment is not relevant to her general argument about telethons. This in
turn raises doubts about the coherence of her position. Furthermore, it requires the caller to perform a particular kind of defensive next action: to
account for her prior utterance.
A second strategy available to hosts is to formulate a version of what the caller has just said. In radio talk shows, they can be used ‘cooperatively’ to
offer the caller a gloss of their position to which he or she can assent Hutchby, 1996a: 53. But they can be used more aggressively to engineer some level of
control over the agenda or the topic of the conversation. In the following extract the caller is advancing the argument that charity telethons have nega-
tive consequences because they encourage passive altruism, thus fostering a ‘separateness’ between the viewer and the specific problems which discourages
active involvement.
9.9 From Hutchby, 1996a: 54
1 C: … but e:r, I- I thing we should be working at
2 breaking down that separateness I think
these 3
H: Ho:w?
4 .
5 C: these telethons actually increase it.
196 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
关
关 兴
