Background of the Study
This study is therefore a discourse study so that a description of discourse which is used in this writing should be provided before moving on to the relation
among discourse, language, and power. Foucault 1926-1984 was convinced that the world we live in is structured by knowledge, or in other words: certain people
and social groups create and formulate ideas about our world, which under certain
conditions turn into unquestioned truths and start to seem normal. For him, one
cannot simply know something based on binaries and static relationship so that it is important for pointing out the complexity of social construct of language that
constructs and represents such cons tructs Foucault, 1972. Foucault‘s argument
very useful that discourse affects social relations through the very real, often
physical effects it has on our environment Foucault, 1977. Weedon 1987 provides her interpretation to the Foucault‘s definition of discourse as ways of
constituting knowledge, together with the social practice, forms of subjectivity and power relations which is in such knowledge and relation between them. The
discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. It constitutes the ‗nature‘ of the body, conscious and unconscious mind and emotional life of
the subjects they seek to govern. This definition gives at least basic understanding of discourse in general and specifically its relation to power.
Foucault 1977 further says that discourse presupposes all forms of knowledge and truth. For example, certain discourses shared in certain contexts
have the power to persuade people to approve statements as truth. Discourse also exposes something about the people who say it making
speaker‘s social class, gender, ideology and ethnicity are identified. So, discourse is not only a matter of
language, but it is also about the person who speaks it. To sum up, discourse which is usually involved with recognized socially networks of power affect the
whole social practice, even the world that is perceived, and the behavior toward the world. In short, discourse can abstractly mean the language in use and
concretely mean a particular way of representing part of the world. Discourse plays an important role in the social construction of the world because discourse
enables social communication. However, Verdonk 2002 also adds that people have lost the awareness to
the ideological positions in texts due to the convention uses of language. The awareness is now lost due to the constant exposure to dominant norms, value
systems, and belief which are linguistically mediated in the discourse of, for example, powerful political, social, and cultural institution.
The writer takes two President Barack Hussein Obama‘s inaugural addresses. These are two of many political addresses he has delivered in his term
of office. The main reason for taking these two addresses is that they are the chance a president could have to build public support and confidence toward to
his terms for the first time. An inaugural addresses must be presented by those who already hold the power as a leader, in this case is President Obama. So, any
ideological aspects mentioned in the address texts must carry the way Obama uses his power. As said by Bracher 1993, that political campaign rhetoric is another
form of discourse that can produce quite obvious and fairly immediate psychological and social effect.
The writer assumes that Obama has used his power to control the citizens within the language structure that is ideologically accepted. He emphasizes on the
issue of economy crisis and motivates the people to change their attitude toward the social condition with the notion of nationalism and liberty as the power source
of the country to fight the crisis. He stated in the first inaugural address,
―Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this,
America: They will be met VI, a. ‖
The purpose of his address in general is to invite all citizens to create the economy stability together by taking risk in the entrepreneurship which will be supported
by regulations. For that, he wishes that the citizens trust the government and put aside the negative issue about America. He believes that with a better economy
condition, the nation will gain the liberty and equality for all. This act is called as ‗a politics of economic activism‘ Rose, 2004: 144, which happens due to the
desocialization of government in the name of the maximation the individual entrepreneurial behavior.
He puts also in his address the thing that reminds the people about past experience that has contributed the negative impact to the recent social condition
for instances are the issue of war and terrorism. This is represented in the second inaugural address when Obama says,
―We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle,
are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty XVII, b.
‖
However, Obama invites people to look further back to the principles of the nation that has been fought by their predecessors. This is represented in the fourth
paragraph of the second inaugural address, he says:
―Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-
free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together IV, b.‖
He tries to straighten out what is worth fighting for by the nation for the
community as a whole. On the basis of this vision, the people are promised a better life that includes equal rights, freedom, and prosperity. However, for a state
leader, no matter how fine the things he says, the values and norms offered are just part of his skill in reasoning and persuading the citizens to agree on his
command. He also mentions about the pride in work and labor which are linked to the
value of independency and liberty. He says, ―
We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship
29, XI, b.‖
Then he adds Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which for him will back up the citizens and handle the coming risks from the social and the economy
engagement. In the second inaugural address, he says,
―The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a
nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great XIV, b. ‖
What can be inferred from his speech is that Medicare and Medicaid as well as the Social Security are programed to strengthen America where the people can
contribute in the economy development while government provides the insurance and security. In the contrary, Rose 2004 states that citizens cannot rely upon the
state to provide you with unconditional security against risks and to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. Rose, further, emphasizes that
government‘s political responsibility is to provide training, combat discrimination, help with child care for lone parents, even to improve individual rights and
protections as a worker and at work. Nevertheless, citizen‘s political responsibility
as a citizen is to improve your own lot through selling their labor on the market. Therefore, Obama as the representation of government does not provide all the
good thing citizen can imagine. In fact, he implicitly commands the citizens to get employed in order to benefit themselves and the country.
As implied in Obama‘s addresses, there are other countries‘ cynical
responses to the U.S. with its political issues and wars that happens in recent times. It shows that no matter what, a state leader is just part of social system.
Even more, a leader would not necessarily refer himself as a leader and be free to do his will over others. A leader can easily be ousted from his position when his
policy goals found to be not in line with the community. A leader needs support in order to run the power and do the mandate of the public. Thus, the phenomenon
which is highlighted here is Obamas political approach to the society. The reciprocity
of Obama‘s approach is not merely to get the material things but for the trust and legitimate support for the continuity of government in the name of
the state‘s integrity. Therefore, there are numerous aspects in the circumstances in where a text
is produced. The heterogeneity of the texts is examined to explore the value systems and sets of beliefs which reside in texts; to explore, in other
words, ideology in language Simpson, 2005. A CDA framework used in this study will reveal the use of power on any aspects it is subjected to and see how
language works to represent and reconstruct ideology in order to support President Obama‘s political goals.
It is true that Critical Discourse Analysis is an interdisciplinary study of language. Fairclough states that CDA is analysis of the dialectical relationship
between semiosis including language and other elements of social practice 1995. It involves both external situation of which the text is produced and also
the internal element of the text itself which is called as intertextuality. Concrete language use, a
s Jorgensen 2002 explains on Fairclough‘s intertextuality, always ties on earlier discursive structures as language users build on already established
meanings. The reproduction of discourses where no new elements are introduced and discursive change through new combinations of discourse is investigated
through the intertextuality analysis. Therefore, the discourse analysis cannot only be done outside the text, but it must put the same proportion to the structure of
that language appear in the text. In this study, Systemic Functional Linguistics SFL theory developed by
M. A. K. Halliday is used to analyze the language structure in the text. SFL, for Fairclough 2003 intensely concerns with the relationship between language and
other elements and aspects of social life, and its approach to the linguistic analysis of texts is always oriented to the social character of texts. Young and Harrison
2004 see three similarities between SFL and CDA. First, both view language as social construction. Second, both view the dialectic process in language where
language influences the contexts and the contexts influence the language production. Third, SFL and CDA emphasize the cultural and historical acts of
meaning making. In other words, the SFL approach to the text will provide the language data right from the text. By assessing the internal linguistic structure and
applying the SFL approach, the relation between text and the social circumstances in which it is produced will be relatable accordance to each other.