http://das.sagepub.com
Discourse & Society
DOI: 10.1177/0957926505049625
2005; 16; 301Discourse Society
Vlasta Haub
Romanies in Central European Mass Media after the Year 1989]
Book Review: Obraz Romu v stredoevropskych masmediich po roce 1989 [The Presentation of
http://das.sagepub.com
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Discourse & SocietyAdditional services and information for
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at University of Western Sydney on December 17, 2007http://das.sagepub.comDownloaded from
J. HOMOLAC, K. KARHANOVA and J. NEKVAPIL (eds), Obraz Romu v stredoevropskych
masmediich po roce 1989 [The Presentation of Romanies in Central European
Mass Media after the Year 1989]. Brno, Czech Republic: Doplnek, 2003. 184 pp.
This is a collection of studies of mass-media discourse in three Central European
countries. The studies concentrate on media texts from the 1990s, a period of
transition from `socialist' to `neo-liberal' capitalist regimes. The articles analyse
how the Romany ethnic minority is portrayed in the mass media. The collection
consists of six articles dealing with the Czech media, one with the Slovak media,
and one with the Hungarian media. Each article is written in Czech (except for
one, written in Slovak), and each is followed by a summary in English.
The collection draws on analytical methods from ethnomethodology, stylistics
and discourse analysis to show `how are the actions of, or actions regarding, the
Romanies formulated in the media and how the Romanies themselves participate
in this formulation' (p. 6). The concept of `Mass-Medial Dialogical Network' is
particularly explored in most articles with the combination of `Member
Categorisation Analysis'. The editors' aim is not to show that the texts express
racial prejudices or to list the usual stereotypes and preconceptions used in the
media, but to show by what stylistic and linguistic means the category `Romany'
is created and sustained in the media.
To show the interconnectivity of media, the data were chosen at random on
the basis of similar themes, not on the basis of prejudiced or racist language. This
different approach to data collection is said to be of interest to the specialist
audience not interested in the social psychology approach, which ends up just
listing the stereotypes used in media. As a result of using concrete textual
strategies used in communication with and about the Romanies, the editors
believe that the studies could be used to `make better the everyday mass medial
practices' (p. 6).
Six of the articles analyse media discourse dealing with the same theme; a
301
Book reviews
Discourse & Society
Copyright  2005
SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 16(2): 301­309
10.1177/
0957926505049625
Prospective reviewers please contact Ingrid Piller at
[ipiller@mail.usyd.edu.au]
 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at University of Western Sydney on December 17, 2007http://das.sagepub.comDownloaded from
criminal act perpetrated on the Romanies by members of the non-Romany
population ­ usually members of the `skinhead' movement. Two of the articles
deal with the representations in the media of public documents regarding the
Romanies. All articles analyse the concept of Mass-Medial Dialogical Network
(MDN); the categorization of members of the MDN and the process of becoming
a member of the MDN. Most of the articles found that the MDN was held together
by the theme and sequence structures, especially `pair sequences'. The category
Romany is described positively by the Romanies and negatively by `others'. But
the analysis shows a certain paradox; although the journalists categorize and
construct relational pairs on an other-than racial basis, for example, not labelling
the criminal acts as racially motivated, they use the stereotypical labels for the
Romanies, thus participating and sustaining a racial discourse. `RomaniesSkinheads'
is the usual relational pair presented as constantly in conflict. The
other `pair', `Romanies' and `us' (the majority ethnic group including the journalists),
was presupposed in the media but never clearly stated, which further
shows the efforts to conceal racism. The aim of most articles is not to criticize the
representations used in the media. It is, however, possible, say the authors, to use
the studies for such a purpose.
The collection is an interesting study into the representation of the Romany
ethnic minority by Central European media. The language is accessible to a nonacademic
audience. The theoretical link between the articles is good but not all
the proposed aims have been met. The structure of the articles is not very clear;
with each article having its own style of presentation.
Most articles in this collection agree in their conclusions that negative labels
for the Romanies are created and reproduced in the media, and that this is done
indirectly. A weakness in the collection is that some authors are not willing to
critically analyse the media discourse; something that would have made the
collection much more interesting and place it deeper within the framework of
`discourse and society'. As Jakubowicz (1994) points out in Racism, Ethnicity and
the Media, `[o]ur understanding of the relations between different segments of
society, even our sense of what the groups are and how we should conceptualise
social difference, is formed partly by the labels and divisions repeated and reinforced
by the mass media' (p. 3). Media discourse plays an important part in
forming and reflecting the discourse of the wider society; critical analysis is a
necessary part of any analysis of such a discourse.
In his article `Media Representation of the Discrimination Against the Roma
in Eastern Europe: The Case of Slovenia', Erjavec (2001) also analyses categorization
and contextualization in media discourse. However, categorization and
contextualization form only part of a greater analytical framework. Erjavec combines
these with theme analysis to clearly show how structure and categories
used by the media legitimize and naturalize racism. Although the authors in the
collection found that the main thread in the MDN was the theme, they do not
attempt to analyse this concept. By not confronting the representations in the
media the collection was not able to achieve its stated aim to `make better the
302 Discourse & Society 16(2)
 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at University of Western Sydney on December 17, 2007http://das.sagepub.comDownloaded from
everyday mass medial practices' (p. 6). However, the collection succeeds in showing
that the Romanies are subject to covert racist discourse in the media.
R E F E R E N C E S
Erjavec, K. (2001) `Media Representation of the Discrimination Against the Roma in
Eastern Europe: The Case of Slovenia', Discourse & Society 12: 699­727.
Jakubowicz, A. (ed.) (1994) Racism, Ethnicity and the Media. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Vlasta Haub
University of Sydney, Australia
NIELS KERSTRM ANDERSEN, Discourse Analytical Strategies: Understanding
Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau and Luhmann. Bristol: Policy Press, 2003. xxii + 135 pp.
ISBN: 1­861­3443­92.
This book is designed as a handbook for constructivist discourse analysts to forge
their own theoretical accounts, through exploration of the analytical options
offered by four key thinkers on the social as communication. It is a rather abstract
and schematic book, describing each of a dozen strategies for constructing
objects of study while including almost no examples and little critical assessment
or synthesis. Niels kerstrm Andersen is, though, wonderfully clear in that
description, teasing out and clarifying the modes of analysis in the works of
Michel Foucault, Reinhart Koselleck, Ernesto Laclau and Niklas Luhmann. The
book's greatest strength is perhaps as a kind of comparative reference text to
these strategies, once they are articulated and combined in terms of researchers'
own agendas.
The book's rationale is the need to lure researchers away from a reliance on
methodologically driven analyses, which Andersen criticizes as too often assuming
the ontological priority of the empirical. Instead he emphasizes what he calls
the `second-order perspectives' of these four theorists, which together explore
`what possibilities for observation unfold when the concern is no longer given
objects but, instead, the question of how problems, individuals, interests ­ all
kinds of social identities ­ come into existence as and within communications'
(p. xv). The book makes a strong case for such epistemological reflexivity, arguing
that, far from being a retreat into theory, it enriches analysis. As Andersen points
out, `On the contrary, the indiscriminate use of preconceived categories and
methods of first-order observations creates immunity from the empirical'
(p. 116).
The book is divided into separate discussions of each thinker's analytical
strategies. In this it is often clear and incisive, showing not just depth of understanding
of the wide-ranging analyses each has developed, but the ability to
formulate their often unstated analytical moves and logics. I found the discussion
of the complementarity of deconstruction and hegemonic analysis in Laclau's
Book reviews 303
 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at University of Western Sydney on December 17, 2007http://das.sagepub.comDownloaded from