view. Power in Javanese is described as something concrete, homogeneous, constant in total quantity, and without inherent moral implications Anderson,
1992. In the era of colonization, those two aspects were seen contradictory and could not walk along together. However, in this so-called post-modern era,
materialized forms of power wealth, weapon, social status, etc are not the main modals for a country to maintain its role in the global society but knowledge about
this will make those as power sources too. Power, then, is inextricably linked with knowledge: ―power and knowledge directly imply each other … there is no power
relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power
relations‖ Foucault, 1977: 27. Gee 2008 adds that what people in power believe is simply an expression of their controlling and powerful positions in the
social hierarchy, and their desire, whether conscious or not, to retain and enhance their power.
Bourdieu also notes that power does not lie in the symbolic system as words and slogans. ―It is defined in and through a given relation between those
who exercise power and those who submit to it i.e. the very structure of the field in which belief is produced and reproduced 1991: 88
.‖ Power is implied not only by grammatical forms
within a text, but also by a person‘s control of a social event by means of the genre of a text. Therefore, the words alone cannot create the
belief to subvert the social order but what does is the belief in the legitimacy of words and of those who utter them.
3. Critical Discourse Analysis
In this part, the writer is going to refer to some theories that show the relation among ideologies, power, discourse and language. Many theorists present
the general principles of CDA in their own terms.
a. Major Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis
The most widely cited view is Fairclough and Wodak‘s 1997 principles of CDA. The first principle which will be used in this study is by Fairclough and
Wodak 1997 is that CDA addresses social problems. Fairclough and Wodak are very clear in giving the boundary of CDA study. CDA follows a critical approach
to social problems in its endeavors to make explicit power relationships which are frequently hidden. It aims to derive the results which are of practical relevance to
the social, cultural, political and even the economic contexts. The second principle is that power relations are discursive. That is CDA
explains how social relations of power are exercised and negotiated in and through discourse Fairclough Wodak, 1997.
The third principle is that discourse constitutes society and culture. This means that every instance of language use makes its own contribution to
reproducing and transforming society and culture, including relations of power. Discourse also does ideological work. In other words, ideologies are often
produced through discourse. To understand how ideologies are produced, it is not enough to analyze texts; the discursive practice how the texts are interpreted and
received and what social effects they have must also be considered Fairclough Wodak, 1997.
The fourth principle is that discourse is history. Thus discourses can only be understood with reference to their historical context. In accordance with this
CDA refers to extralinguistic factors such as culture, society and ideology in historical terms Fairclough Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996, 2001.
The fifth principle is that the link between text and society is mediated. CDA is concerned with making connections between socio-cultural processes and
structures on the one hand, and properties of texts on the other Fairclough Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 2001; Meyer, 2001; Scollon, 2001. CDA does not take
this relationship to be simply deterministic but invokes an idea of mediation. Fairclough studies this mediated relationship between text and society by looking
at ‗orders of discourse‘ Fairclough, 1992, 1995. Wodak 1996, like van Dijk 1997, introduces a ‗sociocognitive level‘ to her analysis, and Scollon 2001
studies mediation by looking at ‗mediated action‘ and ‗mediational means‘. CDA then sees language use in address
and writing as a form of ‗social practice‘. Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a
particular discursive event and the situations, institutions and social structures. What follows is a summary of these principles.
The sixth principle is that CDA is interpretative and explanatory. CDA goes beyond textual analysis. It is not only interpretative, but also explanatory in
intent Fairclough Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996. These interpretations and explanations are dynamic and open, and may be affected by new readings and
new contextual information. Meyer 2001 calls this process a hermeneutic process and maintains that compared with the analytical-inductive process
employed in some other fields, hermeneutics can be understood as a method of grasping and producing meaning relations by understanding the meaning of one
part in the context of the whole. He further argues that hermeneutic interpretation in particular requires detailed documentation such as an explicit linguistic analysis
of texts. Discourse from the point of view of CDA, then, is a form of social action. The principle aim of CDA is to uncover opaqueness and power relationships.
CDA is a socially committed scientific paradigm. It attempts to bring about change in communicative and socio-political practices Fairclough Wodak,
1997.
b. Van Dijk‟s View of Ideologies, Power, Discourse and Language.
Van Dijk‘s theory of discourse analysis is found to be helpful also to understand the seemingly vague relationship among ideologies, power, discourse
and language. Van Dijk explains that ―discourse is not always ideologically transparent, and discourse analysis does not always allow us to infer what peoples
ideological beliefs are. This always depends on the definition of the communicative situation by the participants, that
is, on context.‖ 2006: 124 In other words, the concept of ideology is non-deterministic. It is not a must for the
members to always express or enact the beliefs of the groups they identify with. Ideological discourse is always personally and contextually variable. However,
this does not mean that ideologies are increasingly less important in a globalized world. Just it is only in some contexts they are not being manifest so that conflicts
can be resolved more easily.
