Discourse analysis discussed by Gill Rose are based on the Foucault’s theory and methodology, according to which the “discourse refers to group of statements, which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of thinking” (2001, p. 136). Discourse is not only certain knowledge about object or events and interconnected practices which explained how they can be described, explained or understood, discourse operates under its own rules and institutions, as well as produces it’s own subjects and roles.
There are a number of different verbal and visual practices, including texts, images, videos etc, through which discourses can be expressed. Therefore, it brings up a crucial part of general discourse’s understanding – intertextuality – which should be always kept in mind while studying any particular discourse. In simple words, intertextuality depends more on the meaning of an image or a text, because it always has a strong connection to other images, texts, discourses and real life objects and happenings. Whenever there are a few meanings carried within one discourse, a notion of discursive formation should be kept in mind, as it refers to the interconnections between this meanings. Another important notion related to the discourse is its power which lies in its productiviTy. Discourses, indeed, provide, certain ways of thinking about the world, but they do not claim new truths and have no intentions of imposing new laws, rules, behaviour patterns. These ways of thinking are based solely on those, that already exist. Therefore, Foucault argues that discourses “produce the world as it understands it” (Rose, 2001, p.137). Another 2 notions which should be kept in mind are the interrelation between power/knowledge, as well as regime of truth. The former deals with the fact that knowledge is, essentially, discursive and discourses are powerful in their productivity, as well as the idea that the power of discourse is based on its truthful facts. The latter, refers to the fact that discourses operate in different regimes where understandings of truths may differ from one another.
Based on the methodology of Foucaul it is possible do distinguish two different discourse analysis: Discourse analysis 1 (DA1) and discourse analysis 2 (DA2). Discourse analysis 1 is dedicated to the notions of discourse that have been articulated through visual images or verbal and written language, giving the priority to the discourse itself, discursive formation and their productivity (2001, p. 140). Discourse analysis 2 is rather concerned with the actual practices of institutions and the way they construct discourse and discursive strategies, emphasising the notions of power, regimes of truth, institutions and technologies (2001, p. 140). Here, I will study theoretical peculiarities of the Discourse analysis 1 and look into the study of Charlene Elliott, who applied the DA1 to the case of Starbucks.
As it can be seen from the very definition of the Discourse analysis 1, it is primarily concerned with discourse itself. Therefore, DA1 is the one that examines the visual and verbal images and social modality of discourses and therefore, the ways of “constructing accounts of the social world”. Considering the fact that discourses surrounding a topic can be found in every text, image, video or piece of music related to that, it is, therefore, very easy to become overwhelmed by the amount of sources. Consequently, there are few important things that scholars should keep in mind before falling on to the analysis. First of all, each scholar should stay as objective as possible and do not take a side of any party involved in the discussion. It will ensure a proficient, fresh and complete analysis. Secondly, at the stage of source gathering, scholars should bear in mind that sources are all about quality over quantity. Even though, the quality of used materials is, indeed, important for any type of analysis, it’s a key ingredient of conducting a successful, interesting and valuable research. Chosen sources should be as diverse as possible, representing sides and views of all involved parties; most relevant as well as cross-genre; and, of course, truly original.
Charlene Elliott, in her analysis of the Starbucks discourse, pays special attention to the “cultural text of coffee” which exists both within coffee (bean/beverage) and the discourse created around it (2001, p.371). She argues, that even though, discourse of coffee presented in westernised culture is interesting on its own, the example of Starbucks is the best suited one, because it is one of the biggest coffee brands which significantly influenced and changed the culture of coffee in the US. Constructed discourse operates on several levels: beverage itself, names of coffee blends and bean labels. She looks into the ways Starbucks name its beverages and how it presents them; what words are used in the marketing campaign and advertisements; what are companies official slogans and, most importantly, the rhetorics of Starbucks.
In general, Starbucks discourse is based primarily on the “interplay between global/local and producer/product” (p. 373). It starts with the way company presents beverages and their origins. Starbucks claims, that no matter where the coffee came from (Latin America, Indonesia or Africa) its final destination is consumer’s cup and declares their main goal as the one to make every cup of coffee great. At the same time, Starbucks uses a very specific exotic geographical discourse for the coffee beans, embracing locations which college graduates cannot find on a map” such as New Guinea, Guatemala, Colombia or Indonesia (p.374). These exotic places perfectly serve their purpose of creating exclusive exotic experience and attracting customers. However, it’s the coffee beans and not countries that is given a main focus on. Starbucks produces coffee blends from beans in several foreign countries and ties them up with the flavours of the beans, naming each blend as bright and inviting, or intense and exotic (p.374). Same logic is applied to the single origin coffee, and therefore, customers are literally buying “places in a cup” (p.376).
Another part of these global/local discourse can be seen in the terms used to name such basic things as servers, beverages and beverage sizes. In Starbucks they are called baristas, beverages hold fancy names of caramel macchiato or espresso con panna, while cup sizes are short, grande and venti, instead of small medium or large (p.376). Foreign influence of Starbuck’s rhetorics also extends to the naming of beans and coffee blends and takes form of so-called oriental discourse, which can be defined as “ethnocentric and stereotypic means of viewing, describing, restructuring and ultimately dominating over Muslim lands in Africa and Asia” (p. 377). In addition to giving their coffee such descriptions as “brisk”, “bright” or “intense”, some of the blends, under the logic of orientalism, described as “magical”, “fleeting”, “wild” or “spicy” (p. 378). Some of them even have references to female sexuality, such as “full-bodied” or “soft” and “well-rounded”.
Therefore, the rhetorics of Starbucks are based on the interplay between global and local. Though the main focus is putted on the local, immediate consumer experience of consuming the beverage, even though, company does emphasises its overseas origins. It derives from the fact that Starbucks always puts product (a coffee) first.