Rugged Truth: Individualism in Chicago’s Prominent Newspapers throughout the 1920-1930s
by Brooke Eubanks | Xchanges 16.2, Fall 2021
Critical Discourse Analysis and Personal Approach
Because power is created and maintained by language, we need tools that enable us to critically analyze that language. Critical discourse analysis affords “at root, a highly systematic, thorough approach to critical reading (and listening), and critical reading almost inevitably leads to questioning the status quo and often leads to questions about power and inequality” (Johnstone 29). In terms of the status quo, print media represents and influences political, social, and economic thought. The two newspaper companies that I examine in this article provide different perspectives on these thoughts, as they have different intended audiences and cultural backgrounds. However, the geographic location of publishing remains the same. Through critical discourse analysis, it is possible to depict the relationship between conservative and progressive narratives as they pertain to individualism and whether they are affected by marginalization and power.
As with most humanities and social science research, it is challenging to separate bias and background knowledge from the analysis. Considering current research about the implications of individualism as it pertains to the dominant capitalist culture of the United States, my own opinion on individualism is negative. With growing scientific research and commentary, it has been discovered that individualism increases competition and social mobility, which has proven to increase rates of social anxiety. These increases result in a decrease in satisfaction and quantity of interpersonal relationships, which leads to other mental illnesses (Ogihara; Uchida). We can expect this decrease when relationships are characterized by competition and status, as opposed to friendship or family support. I will not analyze contemporary scientific advancements to remove a large piece of this bias.
Nonetheless, my bias is inevitably revealed. Humanities and social science researchers “have come to be (1) critical of the possibility of producing a single, coherent, scientifically valid description, and (2) critical of the status quo and concerned to have their work used in changing things for the better” (Johnstone 28). Thus, my critical goal is to intervene on the side of those with less power by critiquing the traditional narrative surrounding individualism.