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
6 H: Well, what you’re saying is that charity does. 7
C: h Charity do::es, ye ::s I mean
8 H:
Okay we- so you ’re . so 9
you’re going back to that original argument we 10
shouldn’t have charity 11
C: Well, no I um: I wouldn’t go that fa:r, what I
12 would like to see is-
13 H:
Well how far are you going then. 14
C: Well I: would- What I would like to see is …
The host formulates the caller’s position thus: ‘Well, what you’re saying is that charity does. [increase separateness]’ line 6. Although the caller then offers only
a tentative agreement, in that the extended ‘does’ and ‘yes’ suggest some element of disagreement, the host builds on his formulation to attribute to the caller an
extreme position: that charity
per se is a bad thing. In this way, the host has been able to hijack the discussion to focus on a more controversial topic. It also places
the caller in a disadvantageous position of having to clarify what exactly his argu- ment is, rather than elaborating it, or offering a more forceful defence.
A third strategy available to talk show hosts is to attribute a position to the caller – often using direct or indirect reported speech – but then to challenge
that position. This argumentative move often takes the form of a device Hutchby identifies as ‘You say X but what about Y?’. The following extract
illustrates this, and comes from a programme in which callers were offering their views on proposals to change Sunday trading laws.
9.10 From Hutchby, 1996a: 61–2
1 C:
I think we should . er reform the la:w on 2
Sundays here, 0.3 w- I think people have 3
the choice if they want to do shopping on a Sunday 4
0.4 also, that, . i-if shops want to open on a 5
Sunday th- th- they should be given the choice to 6
do so 7
H: Well as I understand it th:: . law .
8 a:s they’re discussing it at the moment would allow
9 shops to open ·h for six hou:rs ·hh e:r
on a = 10
C: Yes.
11 H:
= Sunday.
12 C:
That’s righ t 13
H: From: midda:y.
14 C:
Y es 15
H: They wouldn’t be allowed to open befo:re that
16 ·hh Erm and you talk about erm, . the rights of
17 people to: make a choice as to whether they
18 shop or not,
on a Sunday,=what about ·hh the=
19 C:
Yes, 20
H: =
people who may not have a choice a:s to whether 21
they would work on a Sunday.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 197
关
关
关 关
关 关
兴
兴
兴
The caller is clearly in favour of extended Sunday trading hours, and argues that there would be benefits for consumers and traders. After a period of talk
in which host and caller clarify the nature of the Government’s proposals lines 7 to 14, the host paraphrases part of the caller’s argument: ‘and you talk
about erm, . the rights of people to: make a choice as to whether they shop or not, – on – a Sunday’ lines 16 to 18. The caller assents to this formula-
tion, overlapping with part of the host’s turn. But the host then goes on to challenge that argument by suggesting that it does not take account of the
shopworkers who would be affected by extended trading hours. This device thus allows the host to express scepticism about the caller’s point of view.
The ‘You say X but what about Y?’ device allows the host to make a point with a certain rhetorical flourish. For example, Hutchby notes that in this
instance there is a neat symmetry between the two contrastive components of the device: the host challenges the caller’s argument by indicating that sup-
porting rights for one group – shoppers – would necessarily restrict the choices of another group – shopworkers.
Hutchby thus argues that hosts are in a relatively powerful position because there is an unequal distribution of argumentative resources. For example, in the
opening of calls, callers are expected to offer a point of view in their first turn, which means that hosts necessarily have the argumentative advantage. Moreover,
he shows the kinds of resources hosts can use to attack a caller’s position without having to advance an alternative argument. Of course, Hutchby’s analysis covers
a wider range of phenomena than can be discussed here. But running throughout all his analysis is a concern to show how argumentative resources are differen-
tially distributed between host and caller; and how the unequal distribution of these opportunities is embedded in the sequentially organised and oriented-to
properties of talk in this setting. In this he has used CA’s focus on the interactional organisation of discursive activities to explore topics more commonly associated
with critical discourse analysis: the operation of power through language.
In Hutchby’s account power is not treated as a ‘monolithic feature of talk radio’ 1996b: 495 in which the host has power simply by virtue of his or her
control over the technology required for radio broadcast. Instead, by focusing on the turn-by-turn development of social actions which constitute talk-in-
interaction in this specific work-related setting, he shows that power dynamics are variable and shifting. Moreover, in this view power is contestable: for
example, the host can be coerced momentarily into voicing his own opinion, thus allowing the caller to adopt the advantageous position of ‘going second’
in the argument. Thus there are resources available to the callers by which they can resist the host’s argumentative strategies. Consequently, by viewing
power in terms of the relationship between turns in interactional sequences, Hutchby argues that CA can be used to show how ‘power is a phenomenon
brought into play through discourse’ 1996b: 494.
Hutchby argues that this view of power is not very different from conceptions of power found in Foucault’s more theoretically oriented writings. Foucault
198 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
1977 does not assume that power resides with one group, who can then use it to influence other groups. Instead, he sees power as a set of ever-present possi-
bilities which can be mobilised or resisted by social agents individuals, groups, and larger collectivities. Moreover, power is embedded in that set of relation-
ships between social agents who may variably exercise or resist power. Foucault thus views power as a set of structured but variable potentials, not a static
feature of unchanging relationships between well-defined social groups. This focus on the shifting and contestable relationship between agents in which
power can be mobilised and contested chimes with Hutchby’s account of power as fluid and sequentially organised argumentative opportunities and resources.
But Hutchby goes on to offer a more challenging argument: that conversa- tion analysis can offer an empirically grounded elaboration of some of
Foucault’s ideas. For example, Foucault emphasises the role of discourses in power relations; and he argues that the operation of, and resistance to, power
relations through discourses does not just occur on a macro-sociological scale across large social formations, but infuses mundane, everyday activities. But as
we saw in the last chapter, there are problems with the concept of discourses, not the least of which is that it invites the analyst to disattend to the detail of
social interaction – the very environment in which Foucault says power oper- ates. But conversation analysis is directly concerned to describe the subtlety
and intricacy of everyday communicative processes. For Hutchby, then, CA offers a way to explore power in the very infrastructure of sociality: the rela-
tionship between turns at talk-in-interaction.
Summary
• Hutchby studied the mobilisation of power in the allocation of turn types
between the participants in calls to talk radio programmes. •
He identified a number of practices and devices through which the host seeks to maintain an argumentative advantage over the caller.
• His work stands as an illustration of his broader position that conversation
analysts should not be reluctant to consider the extent to which their work captures power relations in the analysis of the organisation of interaction.
Gender and sexuality: feminism, language and conversation analysis
So far we have studied how particular researchers have used conversation analysis to explore power in the organisation of interaction in specific settings,
such as the market, and the radio talk show. In this final section, however, we will be looking at debates about the use of CA amongst a community of scholars:
feminist researchers interested in the relationship between language, gender and sexuality.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND POWER 199
