I will focus largely on Fairclough's ideas and methods here.

While Gee offers some

interesting insights into how CDA work may unfold,

To sum the issue up succinctly, critical discourse analysis assumes that whenever
individuals and/or institutions engage in dialogues (which may or may not include spoken and/or
written language), the power dynamics that exist between these parties will inevitably be
exposed, and can then be located in the evidence produced over the course of a given dialogue.
Such dialogues can unfold via direct personal contact, or they may play out over a longer period,
such as when a government policymaking group reuses the same discourses in its publications.

More than this, however, CDA emphasizes dialogue as a tool by which to sustain such power
dynamics, or, with a bit of skill, to alter them.
The key here is that these power relationships must continually be re-established via language

While there are many different approaches to CDA, I will focus here on the three-
dimensional model developed by Fairclough, and used extensively by Stevenson (Fairclough,
1992; Stevenson, 2001; and Stevenson, 2009). As Fairclough notes (as cited by Stevenson,
2009), "any discursive 'event' (i.e. any instance of discourse) is seen as being simultaneously a
piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice" (Fairclough,
1994, p. 4). Analysis of a given text, then, should proceed along the dimensions of "text,
discourse practice, and social practice" (Stevenson, 2009, p. 5). Interestingly, Stevenson notes
that this methodology is useful to study texts from a historical perspective:
[A]s a textually oriented model, the centrality of the text as a concrete instance of
wider discursive and social practices is emphasized. In this way public policies, in
their textual form, can be read as social and cultural artefacts which provide us
with important clues as to the underlying historical conditions of their production
(Stevenson, 2001, p. 53).
While I will probably not use public policy documents in my own research, I believe that this
approach remains valid for the study of other historical texts, from workplace memos and status
reports to operating manuals and advertising materials. Given the similarities between this kind
of approach and research methods in postmodern history, I believe that TODA is a solid
foundation for any type of historical research project.
As to what TODA brings to the table in terms of analytical tools, Fairclough notes, quite
succinctly, that research focused on discourse and power will uncover the "'common-sense'
assumptions which are implicit in the conventions according to which people interact
linguistically, and of which people are generally not consciously aware" (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2).
To rephrase this with a bit more sophistication, Fairclough connects discourse to ideology. It is
worthwhile citing him at length here:
Ideologies are closely linked to power, because the nature of the ideological
assumptions embedded in particular conventions, and so the nature of those
conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the
conventions; and because they are a means of legitimizing existing social
relations and differences of power, simply through the recurrence of ordinary,
familiar ways of behaving which take these relations and power differences for
granted (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2).
Language is a powerful tool, then, by which ideologies may be sustained and extended. It can be
used to construct narratives, as well as the social, political, and economic identities that feature in
such narratives. In order to resist these methods, according to Fairclough, we have to recognize
them for what they are:
Resistance and change are not only possible but continuously happening. But the
effectiveness of resistance and the realization of change depend on: people
developing a critical consciousness of domination and its modalities, rather than
just experiencing them (Fairclough, 2001, p. 3).
A call for political action is often an end goal of CDA work, particularly when powerful
institutions and the hegemonic discourses they produce are under consideration. With respect to
my research, the situation is somewhat complicated. Instead of advocating for political change,
my research will likely delineate new perspectives on gaming and game programming that I feel
are more empowering to users and players. I will discuss this issue in more detail later on.
I believe, then, that a CDA approach would be exceedingly useful for my research topic:
the history and early evolution of digital computing technologies from a gaming perspective,
with a specific focus on interactivity and user agency across different platforms. Most of my
research would focus on the work of a diversity of academic, governmental, and military
institutions, as well as some of the earliest private computer firms such as Digital Equipment
Corporation (which were still connected quite closely to the public sector). Offsetting such
institutional power were the many engineers, technicians and programmers that actually built and
operated the mainframe and minicomputers of the era. An intriguing aspect of this history lies in
the fact that computing technologies advanced at a tremendously rapid pace, due in large part to
the inventions of the transistor, and then the integrated circuit. With the emergence of the
personal computer as a consumer product, moreover, standardization became a serious concern.
This meant that individuals, or small groups of people, could have an outsized influence on the
evolution of computer hardware and software. Even something as seemingly frivolous as the
game Spacewar could spread quickly across institutional boundaries both through networks like
APRANET and via researchers and engineers who migrated from one campus or workplace to
another. This small meta-community exercised a tremendous amount of power.
Another reason why I would like to employ CDA is the fact that, at the moment, there
exists only a modest amount of critical history on this period. The role of the military in the
early history of computing has been looked at (see Leslie, 1993), but the bias towards this
admittedly compelling topic means that other aspects of this history have been neglected. There
are also some written accounts of specific computers and/or technologies, but these largely take
the form of "love letters", in the sense that critical appraisal is largely lacking (see, for example,
Redmond & Smith, 1990; and Redmond & Smith, 2000). These works are still quite useful, as is
the official documentation produced by relevant institutions, as well as the first-hand accounts of
certain events that can be found in a variety of places. But all these sources must be treated with
caution. I believe, then, that a CDA approach will allow me to adopt the critical perspective
necessary for working with these sources.
A less overtly strategic reason for using CDA is the fact that it can help elucidate the
major themes that emerge when these sources are studied individually and as a whole, to follow
Fairclough's model. In particular, the theme of control, I believe, plays a large role in shaping
the social, political, and cultural consequences of the rise of digital computing. This theme often
shows up in unlikely places. To cite one example, the development of time-sharing network
computing played a major role in expanding access to corporate and campus computer systems.
By giving multiple users the power to interact with a central computer via terminal stations,
individuals could engage in real-time "conversations" (a term used often at the time) with
computers, typing in commands and having them carried out almost immediately. A wide
variety of games from interactive fiction to business simulations emerged as a consequence
of this "immediate mode" interactivity. This early step towards user-centric "conversational
computing" resulted in a loss of control with respect to how computers were used; games,
certainly, were not meant to be a priority. Yet by studying the games and the texts related to
such games that emerged in this period, we may track the evolution of a counter-discourse in
which user control over computing systems was increasingly important.
In terms of potential obstacles, I foresee two challenges in particular that I will explain
here. The first is the fact that the agency needed to create and sustain discourse is typically
distributed across a diversity of individuals and organizations, and can only be understood on
those terms. There are, for example, many dissertations written by students who were involved
in larger computer engineering projects, but, as standalone texts, do not possess sufficient agency
to shape discourse on their own. When considered alongside the vast quantities of
documentation related to the same projects, however, their role in larger discursive strategies
becomes much clearer. I borrow here from Castells' ideas about agency networks. As he
explains it, networks of individuals and organizations often have to work in tandem to exercise
agency (Castells, 2011).
The second issue related to the fact that many of these people and groups that were
shaping discursive strategies were not necessarily intending to gain hegemonic power over all
actors working within the same network of influences. It is on this point, I believe, that Dyer-
Witheford and de Peuter stumble somehow in Games of Empire. To borrow from one of their
case studies, the Grand Theft Auto series does incorporate neoliberal values such as individuality
and capitalist consumption, whether or not this was intended to promote such values is unclear
(Dyer-Witherford and de Peuter, 2009). Given the satirical ethos that the series is known for, it it
seems likely that Rockstar Games did not intend for their work to celebrate such values. Instead
of trying to determine intention, however, I believe that it is better set the issue aside, at least to a
certain degree. Here I will borrow from actor-network theory a partial ambivalence with respect
to motives. As Latour puts it:
Uncertainty should remain uncertain throughout because we dont want to rush
into saying that actors may not know what they are doing, but that we, the social
scientists, know that there exists a social force "making them do" things
unwittingly (Latour, 1996, p.47).




Von Neumann
Microsoft BASIC made BASIC a standard


is the fact that individuals and small groups of individuals

Not much has been done outside "love letters"

Castells'

Redmond, K. C., & Smith, T. M. (1990). Project Whirlwind: the history of a pioneer computer.
Bedford, MA: Digital Press.

Redmond, K. C., & Smith, T. M. (2000). From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D story of the
SAGE air defense computer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.