Introduction
This research draws on the methodology of discourse analysis I and discourse analysis II to describe the website of a fresh Italian clothing company, called Untilled. When using the discourse approach, I will present the history of Untilled, how it has evolved, and the concepts behind its logo. In so doing, I will rely on Moor and Holt’s arguments on brand and cultural branding, as well as on Klein and Heilbrunn’s definition of the notion of logo. As a conclusion to my research, I will provide how brands can be considered as means of progress, in front of the controversies that have lately attacked them (still needs improvement: “Pro logo” by Chevalier, M., Mazzalovo, G. treats this issue. They argue that brands should not be regarded as the driving forces of the worldwide economic and political downsides of consumption. On the contrary, they should be considered as signs of multicultural development. Furthermore, i would like to apply this concept to Untilled and the multicultural impact that it is trying to create).
Context
As Rose (2001) states in her book, discourse analysis is conceived as one of the most relevant methods under discussion in the branch of cultural studies. Discourse analysis was first built on Foucault’s definition and it has further developed into several variations of its concept. According to Rose (2001), Foucault sees discourse as everything that creates how the world is seen by groups of statements. In the first place, Foucault explains discourse in terms of productive power, in the sense that it produces both the world and the human subjects which inhabit it, as it understands them (Rose, 2001). Moreover, discourse creates a power-relation between the discourse itself and the human subjects, as “Discourse disciplines subjects into certain ways of thinking and acting […]” (Rose, 2001, p. 137). In the second place, Foucault argues that power not only produces the ideas of how we understand things, but it also creates knowledge (Foucault in Rose, 2001). More specifically, Rose (2001) claims that since power characterises discourse, and discourse is characterised by knowledge, knowledge, in turn, is defined by power.
Rose (2011) defines discourse analysis as a qualitative research method, which investigates how concepts are socially created. Discourse analysis I differs from discourse analysis II in terms of the objects which are investigated: whereas the first kind of discourse explores images and texts, the second type focuses more on the practices of the discourse, such as institutions and technologies (Rose, 2001). Rose (2001) claims that discourse analysis I is pursued by a “rhetorical organization” which follows seven steps. The first one entails to study our sources with “fresh eyes”, by neglecting the notions we probably have already acquired before (Rose, 2001). The second step implies a complete diving into the sources under study, which consequently brings us to the third task: looking for key terms (words or images) and finding relations among them (Rose, 2001). As a consequence, Rose (2001) presents the fourth step, which is focused on the way a particular discourse persuades in order to convince that its knowledge is true. Rose (2001) moves then to the last part of the discourse methodology, characterised by individualising the contradictory and complex structure of the discourse, as well as the “invisible” parts which are not explicitly grasped at a first glance. At the last step, Rose (2001) advices to read the source more carefully in order to identify every single detail.
Discourse analysis II is a form of the research method discourse analysis. Although discourse analysis I and discourse analysis II are concerned with the same object materials, they differ in their methodology: whereas the former is only interested in studying the “[…] production and rhetorical organization of visual and textual materials” (Rose, 2001, p. 164), the second also focuses on the study of the institutions and practices which create these materials (Rose, 2001). According to Rose (2001), social institutions and spaces depend on their institutional apparatus, which can be the architecture or the laws and morals that shape the relations between power and knowledge in a certain institution. To give an example, Rose (2001) examines how museums and art galleries produce visual and textual images within their institutional apparatuses: she uses Bennett’s investigation on museums and galleries, drawn on the study of their architecture and internal layout (Rose, 2001, p. 171). Bennett (in Rose, 2001) considers museums and galleries as institutions which uses discourses of culture and science in order to create their proper design and, also, produce subject positions. According to Bennett (in Rose, 2001), facades, entrances, halls, as well as the way paintings are hung on the walls (internal layout) of museums and galleries express their discourses of culture, since they are inspiring as are the concepts which they express. For what concerns the subject positions, Bennett (in Rose, 2001) identifies three of them, namely the owners of the institutions, the curators and, finally, the visitors. At the same time, Bennett (in Rose, 2001) states that museums, as well as art galleries, civilise their visitors and regulate their behaviour within surveillant architectural design, warders and other visitors. Moreover, Rose (2001) argues that institutions and spaces are also defined by institutional technologies, which are the specific techniques that the institution uses to perform the relations between power and knowledge: examples might be the arrangement of displays and objects in museums and art galleries, or textual and visual technologies. Rose (2001) considers technologies as ways to reproduce knowledge: they can be labels and captions, which describe the objects of the institution, panels, which give some context to the object, and catalogues, which sponsor the institution itself or give a wider context.
Analysis
An example of social institution may be the website of an Italian clothing brand, called Untilled (https://www.untilled.eu). As such, the website may be considered as a social online store, which creates both visual and textual materials, as well as subject positions. More specifically, for visual and textual materials it is meant “technologies of interpretation”, as Rose (2001) names them. These would be captions below each item, panels which provide context of the products and the team itself, and, finally, catalogues in order to create different clothing lines. For subject positions, instead, I refer to the owners of the brand, the technicians who created the website, its design and practices, and the customers. Moreover, for what concerns the educational spectacle that the team uses for their users, it can be noticed that the page layout of the website creates a specific discourse of the team itself. More specifically, it gives information of the team, a story behind each clothing line, and a description of each product. According to Foucault’s concept of discipline, it would be exaggerated to consider the costumer as kept under surveillance and disciplined by the institution. Indeed, he is both guided and limited by the website: for example, the first page invites the consumer to click on different options, which further bring to other options. At this point, the user would not be able to go back to certain options anymore.
List of References
Heilbrunn, B. (1997). Representation and legitimacy: A semiotic approach to the logo. In W. Nöth (Ed.), Semiotics of the media: State of the art, projects, and perspectives.
Holt, D. B. (2004). How Brands become Icons. The Principles of Cultural Branding. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.
Moor, L. (2007). The Rise of Brands. Oxford / New York: Berg.
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.