1. “The Smacking Debate” Language, Discourse and Power, Assignment 3 Jan Scott

2. A FOUCAULDIAN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS TWO CONTRADICTORY TEXTS TEXT 1: Citizens Initiated Referendum. TEXT 2: Dave’s Blog. “Hi, I'm Dave and I think I know it all. Prove me wrong.” http://blog.dave.co.nz/2009/07/smacking-referendum.html Each text constructs a different reality of what constitutes a good parent.

4. Sent to all eligible voters in New Zealand.

5. Administered by Elections New Zealand, official government agency.

9. In group: Citizens, good parents.

11. In group: Non-smacking good parents. Think about discipline.

12. Out group: Parents who smack for correction.

16. Removes focus from parents hitting children

18. First person pronoun to show he is the agent who does not smack children.

20. Accepted that good parents would be criminalised.

21. 46% of eligible voters did not vote

22. Rejected the wording and the version of reality it constructed.

25. The Smacking Debate References: Chief Electoral Office. (2009). Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.elections.org.nz/news/2009-citizens-initiated-referendum- launched.html Lee, C. (2007). ‘Relatively Benign corruption’? Critical discourse analysis for media students. Australian Journal of Communication Studies, 34(2), 91-102. New Zealand Government. Press Release. Terms of reference for review announced. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html. New Zealand Police. Police practice guide for new Section 59. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html. Owen, D. (2009). Project Dave. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://blog.dave.co.nz/. Study Guide. (2009). Study Guide for Language, Discourse and Power. Massey University, School of Language Studies.