The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael Billig

I very much appreciate Michael Billig's style of putting people on the spot in a constructive spirit, putting the cat among the pigeons to keep us on our toes. But should I be using such metaphors? After all, people often use metaphors when they are trying to manipulate others, and metaphors can be ideological. Billig's position would presumably be that I should not. I shall disagree with him on this and other matters, but I am grateful to him for making me think more about what I am doing. I agree with Billig that as critical discourse analysts we should be careful about how we write ourselves, and make the question of how we write more of an issue than we have done. But I think it is important to recognize that we write with different purposes for different readerships, and that this requires different ways of writing. Billig seems to be saying, thought he is not explicit about it, that we should be trying to write for a general public. I have felt for some time that this should be more of a priority for critical discourse analysts that it has been, and I had a go with a book on "New Labour" (Fairclough, 2000). And it is true that this means cutting down on what he calls 'technical jargon' (as does writing textbooks for students). But it does not mean that all our writing is or should be aimed at reaching a general public. Pursuing out political targets also requires developing theory and methodology, and a way of writing in which abstraction, generalization and 'technical jargon' are necessary.