The a nalyses I use to unfold my reading of the texts arise out of the concerns I have outlined in the previous chapter. Postmodern dilemmas are at the forefront of what I like to think of as my mind, and I long (briefly) for a modern clarity of aim and method. I might ally myself \i\7ith a particular approach, a respect-able mentor. However, there is no formula, no map to follow (Gavey, 1 989) . The method I have used in this study is informed by my reading in feminisms especially the works of Patti Lather ( 1986, 1 988, 1 989, 1 991, 1993) and Bron�\lyn Davies ( 1989, 1 993). To a nalyse these anger texts, I have chosen to focus in detail on how discourses of anger are constituted in language and on how these discourses are utilised in constituting subjectivities. I do this by pointing out the forms of language which have particular discursive effects.
The three overlays
In reading these transcripts I place three overlays on the texts. NIy primary interest is in the discourses of anger participants invoke. I am then interested in ho\v anger discourses constitute subjectivities. To illustrate how this process is enacted, I give specific examples of language use in anger talk that re-produce available discourses and at the same time constitute subjectivities.
Discourses producing anger
Anger is produced in the texts in and through discourses which may be deconstructed. These discourses form the first overlay through which I read the texts. To trace recurring ways of talking about anger, I read and reread the transcripts and what I have called themes emerged in my reading. I then labelled these themes and colour coded fragments of the transcripts accordingly. These fragments were collated and filed under 26
A N G E R T H E M E S A Defini tions B Real Anger C Different from D Control E Aggression F Injustice G Frustration H Helplessness I Expectations J Past/ learned K Displaced L Feels physically M Energy N Catharsis 0 Dissociated P Suppressed Q Health R In terpersonal S Good /Bad T Skills U Mask V Family W Children X Gender y School Z Culture
Analys is ... 54 theme labels (Figure 2) with many fragments cross coded under more than one labeL Some of these themes were clusters of s imilar content, for example definitions of anger, anger as different from other specified emotions, the recurring connection of anger with other emotions, for example frustration and helplessness, and the physical sensations associated with anger. Other themes were the contexts of anger stories, including injustice, interpersonal interactions, family, school, and gender. I also noted recurring words with associations that spoke to me of social practices and moralities implying warrants of anger expression, and I collected all the instances of that word, for example "good", "bad", Ii injustice", "control", UI real' anger"l /I energy" .
Figure 2 lists the files in which these fragments were stored. The theme labels at this early stage of analysis relate little to the final presentation. Each fragment was identified by the letter of the theme label and by the number of its position in that file. I then read and re-read again these fragments in relation to each other, moving back to the full texts to check context and to enable reading the fragment in different ways. As I read, the themes faded into the background, as recurring patterns emerged and I became increasingly aware of how anger is produced in and through discourse in the texts. As I produce fragments throughout this text, I have used pseudonyms which a re matched for the sex and e thnicity of the participants. All pseudonyms are from names of herbs and some, but not all, participants chose their own. The only notation of transcripts is the usual punctuation of narrative, since I have worked with transcripts as written tex ts. The words are transcribed as spoken, with the repetitions, hesitations, and incomplete u tterances that are characteristic of spoken words.
As I "'-'Tote about how discourses produce anger as an object, I d rew threads together and played with them until the thematic material could be braided into three plaits. The first plait of themes tracks the constitution of anger in psychology throughout the participants' anger talk. In Chapter Two I "'-'Tote about the dominant discourses of academic psychology with participants' accounts in mind . In Chapters Seven and Eight, I give
Analysis . . . 55
instances of how these discourses are realised in participants' accounts. The second plait brings together various ways in which talking about anger positions the speaker as an arbiter of morality. Talk about anger frequently re-produces values, and anger itself is the obj ect of moral evaluation. This plait comprises Chapter Nine. The third plait braids the themes which constitute anger in the social domain.
Chapters Ten, Eleven, and Twelve discuss hmv anger is invoked as a reaction to the actions of others, and warranted, tolerated or disapproved of in inconsistent ways as relations are negotiated. These are the key topics of the first overlay. In these chapters, the content is arranged around the discourses which constitute anger in the texts of the Student Study.
The constitution of subjectivities
The second overlay is the constitution of subjectivities. Talking about anger has multiple d iscursive effects. An overarching effect which I explore in this reading of the texts is how subjectivities are constituted in anger talk. This exploration forms the second overlay on the texts. Discourses position subjects in society and constitute subjectivities. In our culture, it is important to negotiate an individual 'identity', a I self' with an
' inner world', a 'self' that is gendered. To stand aside from the dominant discourses of psychology which constitute 'identity' and 'self' as objects, I prefer the poststructural term 'subjectivity', and I a m interested in how anger talk constitutes subjectivities as integrated, unitary selves with values and feelings and minds. Subjectivities are constituted as multiple, fragmented and decentred (Hermans, Kempen, & Rens, 1 992; Sampson,
1 985), and versions of subjectivity shift with and adapt to particular interactions. In this research participants are interacting with me as the researcher and me as the lecturer in the counselling training programme. Some participants already know me in other time / spaces, and these multiple relationships are the contexts for their anger talk. Subj ectivi ties are constituted in the relations between participants and me in multiple contexts, and are re-constituted in the scenarios of their interactions with others as positions are taken within stories of and around anger.
Analysis . . , 56
Discourses are reproduced according to appropriateness to social context and speaking subjects are constitu ted with partial awareness of their posItIOning. The dominant discourses in our culture in generat and ",,>ithin the sub-culture of humanistic counselling in particular, re-produce volition and choice over actions and, to a lesser extent, over reactions.
Emotion talk is gendered, positioning subjects as in gendered 'identities', and as knowing appropriate b ehaviours, beliefs and values of that position, and as able to s tep outside those prescriptions in some circumstances. Emotion talk constitutes inner worlds, and individuals with inner depth and self awareness who are unique persons constantly in
the process of growth.
These are the key topics of the second overlay. Here I read the texts for how subjectivities are consti tuted as unique individuals iyho are g endered, have inner lives, are in the ongoing process of growth, and who are emergent counsellors.
The linguistic toolbox
The third overlay on the texts assembles the tools of the analysis. Taking up language use as tools is problematic in this poststructural enterprise. My desire is to decompose anger talk and to enj oy the diversity of words and relations among words rather than to reproduce logocentrism (Derrida,
1978),
but I am limited by my own context. I desire to unravel how discourses are employed to constitute subjectivity, and I can only use the means I understand and have within my grasp. These are the tools of Latinate and transformational grammar (Grinder & Elgin 1 973) from the toolboxes of my past interests in language. I am aware these are the traditional devices of analysing language as representing ' reality' f and Ihandle them with care. In using the language of grammars to talk about speech, I follow the practices of authoritative writers who position grammar as rhetorical rather than referential to the events that are spoken of (Shotter, 1 993). The terminology of grammar enables us to talk about how we speak in ways that are responsive to those around us. "In other
Analysis . . . 57
words, the crucial event to focus upon is not speaking in general, but upon this or that particular act of speaking; and the task is to describe (critically) the influences at work in its shaping" (Shotter 1993, p. 58). 1'\lays of talking construct forms o f ' reality' . :M Ulhausler & Harre ( 1 990) present an extensive analYSis of pronouns as indicative and constitutive of ontology and social relations. In discussing agency, Harre (1995) explores the conventions of the grammar of the first person, and Edwards and Potter (Potter & Edwards, 1 990; E dwards & Potter, 1 995) use grammatical tools to explicate the discursive construction of a ttribution. In this project, I use the terminology of grammar to point up the detail of how discourses produce anger as an object and constitute subjectivities.
I am interested in how anger talk positions speakers in relation to the anger that is spoken, whether persons or anger are the grammatical subject of the action, whether anger is internally or externally located, owned willingly or unwillingly or disclaimed, and how distance is set up from the anger the talk produces. Active and passive voices are grammatical indicators of modality. The vocabulary of emotion words connotes modality, for example, hope is passive in relation to expectation, but anger can be cast as actor or object. Pronoun use is a more subtle indicator of modality. Speakers may use the second and third person pronouns in describing their own actions, and shifting pronouns can effect distance from the action of the verb. For example, the second person pronoun "you" may refer to the interviewer, the speaker herself, no one in particular and everyone in general. General words like "people", "society" take the distance from the anger even further. The systematic vagueness of such language usages positions subjects at a distance from the anger the talk constitutes (Potter & Edwards, 1 990).
Traditional grammar indicates particular subj ect position by noting changes in the mood of verbs. In this analysis I bring into question the traditional distinction between moods. The crisis of representation has destabilised the indicative. The indicative frames a s ta tement that represents a 'fact', a definition called into question once language is understood to construct rather than describe reality. Once language is cast