A Procedural Approach to Ethical Critique in CDA

In this article, Norman Fairclough and Isabella Fairclough propose a procedural approach to moral critique within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This approach is grounded in the integration of practical argumentation as a framework for reasoning about action and decisionmaking. Through this framework, the authors aim to reduce the advocacy and bias that often accompany normative critique grounded in preestablished value systems or moral assumptions. The approach advanced by Norman and Isabella Fairclough—termed dialectical reasoning —emerges as part of a broader effort to review and redirect the dialectical–relational model, which has long served as the theoretical foundation of Norman Fairclough’s work in CDA. Instead, they propose an analytical orientation that draws on dialectical reasoning and foregrounds deliberation and critical accountability. In its revised formulation, this approach draws on multiple disciplines, including critical linguistics, discourse studies, critical sociology, and argumentation theory. It is particularly suited to the analysis of political discourse as a deliberative practice that unfolds under conditions of uncertainty, value conflict, and the need for justified decision-making. Rather than presupposing fixed moral frameworks, this model advocates for the evaluation of arguments advanced both by political actors and by discourse analysts themselves through context-sensitive practical reasoning. Thus, the model constitutes an attempt to advance a stronger and more impartial form of critique—one that preserves the scientific and moral dimensions of critique in research without falling into the pitfalls of normative moral theorizing based on predetermined values or prescriptive moral sources. (1) Norman Fairclough & Isabela Fairclough. (2018) "A Procedural Approach to Ethical Critique in CDA", in Critical Discourse Studies, 15(2), pp. 169-185.