Discourse analysis and non-representational theories in heritage studies: a non-reductionist take on their compatibility

In the last ten years or so, we have witnessed a shift towards so-called non-representational theories in heritage studies. In non-representational theories, one is interested in cognition, affect, and emotion, as well as textual or visual representations of heritage. This turn can be viewed as a prolongation of the popular approach of analysing heritage as discourse, in which heritage is viewed as a cultural process from which the objects of heritage evolve. However, this paper will demonstrate that some proponents of non-representational theories seem to have overlooked an already established linguistic tradition of analysing affect and emotion ‘in’ texts. Since human affect and emotion are linked with semiotic meaning-making, I argue that it is futile to attempt to separate discourse analysis and non-representational theories. I forward an argument that Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Critical Realism (CR) as a philosophy of science may serve as platforms where non-representational and representational approaches can meet to more fully grasp how we represent and respond to heritage.