The phrase "a general discourse of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a broad or overarching conversation or discussion about a particular topic.
Example: "The paper aims to provide a general discourse of the implications of climate change on global economies."
Alternatives: "a broad discussion of" or "an overarching conversation about".
The argument soon becomes elevated into a general discourse on religious and philosophical matters.
Biodiversity has not only become one of the basic environmental policy objectives in both international and national political arenas but also an elementary part of the general discourse of global environmental change.
Bearing this in mind, it follows that education has a prominent role to play in the construction of systems of power; privilege and oppression; and the general discourse of our social realities.
In fact, even if the study is based on a very concrete setting, the results may reflect not only the discourses of Orellana's service providers and policy makers, but also the general discourse of professional stakeholders involved in adolescents' sexual and reproductive health.
It is a central argument in the article that we have to understand the specificity of the decision situation, without reducing it either to other phases (before or after) of the total processes of PND and selective abortion, or to general discourses of disability or normality.
They want one national spittle-flecked shouting match; everyone crazed and desperate, all the political unreason that undergirds the general discourse scrubbed of any patina of reason and gleaming on the surface.
Our suggested catch-phrase of "Mode 3", therefore, integrates several considerations that want to relate systems theory, knowledge, and innovation more directly to each other, and this should be understood as a contribution to a dynamically evolving general discourse on the topics of knowledge and innovation.
We have therefore considered the risk of emphasizing decontextualized comments in our analysis by interpreting the comments as expressions of a general gender discourse rather than linking them to specific physicians.
What is failed to be noted in general discourse is the roles of government in this system.
Debate is essential, but it should focus on issues, not on resolutions designed to disenfranchise a significant group of academics from the general discourse.
