1. The article examines the discursive positioning of Kwame Nkrumah against colonialism, imperialism, and neocolonialism as a form of resistance discourse.
2. Using a positive discourse analysis framework, the study argues that Nkrumah's language use gives voice to the frustrations of African people and empowers them for social action that takes the form of opposing elitism and cultural dominance.
3. The paper contributes to decolonial research and sheds light on how discourse can be construed as an inspiring artifact, which offers a message of encouragement, hope, and strength in times of difficulty.
The article "Voice, agency and identity: a positive discourse analysis of ‘resistance’ in the rhetoric of Kwame Nkrumah" examines the role of language and social actors in formulating discourses of resistance against colonialism, imperialism, and neocolonialism. The study uses a positive discourse analysis framework to argue that Nkrumah's construction of resistance can be seen as a means of advancing the cause and shared interests of marginalized social groups, thereby promoting a social justice agenda.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of resistance discourse and its significance in political discourse analysis. However, there are some potential biases and limitations in the study that need to be considered.
One-sided reporting is evident in the article as it only focuses on Nkrumah's anti-imperialist rhetoric without exploring other perspectives or counterarguments. While Nkrumah's speeches were undoubtedly influential in shaping African independence movements, it is important to acknowledge that not all Africans supported his vision for Pan-Africanism or his approach to governance.
Additionally, the article lacks evidence for some of its claims. For example, while it argues that Nkrumah's language use gives voice to the frustrations of African people and empowers them for social action, there is no empirical data presented to support this claim.
Furthermore, while PDA is presented as a complementary approach to CDA, there is little discussion about how these two approaches differ or how they can be used together effectively. This lack of clarity may limit the usefulness of PDA as an analytical tool.
Finally, while the article acknowledges the importance of contextual framing in PDA, it does not provide sufficient context for understanding Nkrumah's speeches beyond their immediate historical context. A more detailed exploration of Ghanaian/African culture and customs could have provided greater insight into how Nkrumah's messages were received by different audiences.
In conclusion, while "Voice, agency and identity: a positive discourse analysis of ‘resistance’ in the rhetoric of Kwame Nkrumah" provides valuable insights into discourses of resistance against colonialism and imperialism, its potential biases and limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting its findings.