Since I have explained the method of discourse analysis I in the prior blog post, I will now focus on Rose’s second method of discourse analysis called discourse analysis II. This method focuses more on how institutions and spaces structure our human behaviour and society rather than images and texts.

Rose (2001) explains that discourse analysis II, although it works with comparable kind of materials as the first method, “is much more concerned with their production by, and their reiteration of, particular institutions and their practices, and their production of particular human subjects” (p.164). Rose exemplifies this through an example of a study on an archive. She states that a study with this method would look at the archive itself and examine how its specific practices of classification would affect the meanings of what it being organized there. This method is thus mainly focused on the power relations in institutions and practices and is greatly derived from the work of Michel Foucault. He namely examined the structure and power relations in institutions such as prisons with his famous example of the Panopticon and its effect of creating docile bodies. This happened because inmates never knew if they were being watched due to the architectural structure of the Panopticon and thus had to decently behave all the time and consequently disciplined themselves. Foucault mentioned that institutions work in two manners, through their apparatus and their technologies (Rose, 2001,p.166).

An institutional apparatus is, according to Rose (2001), “the forms of power/knowledge which constitute the institutions such as the architecture, regulations and laws and the discourse articulated through all these”(p.166). Rose mostly focuses this method on the examination of  power in the institution apparatuses of  museums and art galleries and how this shapes the design and practices of the institutions through, for instance, the internal layout. Rose (20010 furthermore states that one can look at how discourse creates social positions in museums, such as visitors (p.174). This happens through the spatial or visual elements of museums which embody  a feeling of surveillance which is already present in the design of museums which consequently regulates visitors’ behaviour.

The other manner are institutional technologies. These are practical techniques used to exert power/knowledge and consist of various tools. Rose (2001) explains that this kind of discourse analysis examines what the consequences of such technologies are regarding what they produce (p.175). One of such technologies is displaying which focus on how an object is framed and its effects on the spatial organization. These kinds of techniques work together with other written and visual technologies such as labels or catalogues and how they produce  certain knowledge about objects.

Since the method of discourse analysis II is now established, I will continue by explaining what kind of case study you can examine with this method. Since this method focuses on institutions and its practices I chose, in line with Rose’s text, to pick a museum as my example, namely the Kröller-Müller Museum of modern art situated in Otterlo. When applying the method of discourse analysis II to this case study you want to examine how this institution and its practices structure and depict certain objects, create knowledge about them, and how the museum produces human subjects such as visitors. In order to explore this you would have to look at both the institutional apparatus and the institutional technologies of this museum.

When looking at the institutional apparatus you could look at the architecture of the museum and how this produces certain subjects or how certain established rules or laws discipline the visitors not to touch any of the paintings or to talk very loudly.

When looking at the institutional technologies you could look at, for instance, the decoration of the rooms and how this affects and disciplines visitors. Some of the rooms in the museum, such as the ones dedicated to the collection of Van Gogh, are very sober and almost have a clinical feeling to it since the walls are completely white with grey floors and without any pattern. The only elements in the rooms are the paintings, who are displayed in a row around the whole room, and benches. This particular layout and decoration thus really aims at guiding the way of seeing of the visitors since the rooms are all sober, which has as a consequence that the visitor is not distracted by anything and can fully focus on the painting.

One could also look at the institutional technique of layout in this museum and how this influences visitors. Most of the rooms in the Kröller-Müller Museum are not completely sealed off from each other but rather meld together through open passages. This open feeling of being able to be seen from multiple spaces by both wardens and visitors can discipline visitors to keep from touching any art objects because they can constantly be viewed from multiple directions.

Another example of how the technique of layout can influence  the visitors is by the position of the bench in the room depicted. Since the bench is placed in the middle of the room this has as a consequence that none of the paintings have a dominant viewing position because every painting can be equallywell seen from the bench.

 

References:

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. London: SAGE.

According to Rose, discourse means: “a group of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of this thinking.” (Rose, 2001, p.136). An example of this is medical discourse. This embodies the particular language of medicine, the type of knowledge it generates and the institutions and social spaces which it uses. Rose (2001) furthermore explains that discourses are connected through all kinds of visual images, texts and practices regarding the discourse (p.136). Because of these various forms of connection, intertextuality is very important for comprehending discourses. Intertextuality means that the meanings of one image or text in a discourse also dependents on the meanings found in other images and texts. The manner in which these meanings are linked in a discourse is called discursive formation. She furthermore illustrates that discourses are a form of discipline and are strongly connected with power since discourses discipline subjects into certain ways of thinking and behaving and thus generates our sense of self, objects and places (p.137). This power is, however, not imposed from above on society but is everywhere. The most powerful discourses depend on statements that their knowledge is the truth and the specific ground on which this is alleged form a regime of truth.

Now that the notion of discourse has been clarified, I will move on to one of the methods of discourse analysis which Rose (2001) called discourse analysis I (p.140). This method focuses on the concept of discourse as articulated through multiple images and texts and in what manner they produce social difference . Discourse analysis I focuses on language, specifically on how people use it to create their interpretation of the social world. It can also be used to explore how images create specific views of the social world and to examine how those particular views are established as real through specific regimes of truth.

Rose (2001) explains that there are two areas which are being explored in this method: “First, there is the analysis of the structure of the discursive statements. Second, there is a concern for the social context of those statements: Who is saying them, in what circumstances”(p.149). The first area thus focuses on the organization of discourses themselves. So, how the discourse is structured,  how it generates a specific sort of knowledge or meaning, how images and texts create social differences, and how it generates itself as true. This can be done, according to Rose (2001) by identifying key terms in the sources and looking how they reconcile contradictions (p.154). It is furthermore important to pay attention to the invisible since this can be as powerful as visibility. While this area looks at the rhetorical strategies that could claim the truth of discursive statements, the social context, the second area, is also important since every discourse is occasioned. Rose (2001) mentions that  this does not entail the social practices and institutions in which these discourses occur but the social space where the sources were made and the position of the speaker as well as what sort of audience it was directed to since this affects the type of image or text greatly (p.159).

I will now reflect on how the notion of discourse and discourse analysis I is used in Elliott’s analysis of Starbucks. In this article Elliott (2001) examines how Starbucks creates, packages and presents their coffee and how their marketing tries to depict the coffee bean as exiting but also illustrates stereotyped representations of Third World countries.

One of the similarities with Rose’s text is that Elliot (2001) uses texts regarding the artefact of the bean, the coffee’s description, or the packaging of Starbucks, as her sources since all these discourses blend within the cup of coffee  and show how Starbuck portrays their coffee (p.171). Another similarity with Rose is that Elliott looks at the rhetoric structure of how certain descriptions of coffee’s generate a particular knowledge which create social differences. An example of this is that Starbucks’ marketing language is very geographically inspired. While their house blends, the “Western” blends,  have very positive terms such as wonderful or smooth, they contrast these with the more “exotic” blends from, for instance, Arabia through language. Elliott (2001) noted that the latter embodied an Orientalist discourse since they speak of the mysterious East and portray these countries as being primitive by using descriptive terms such as fleeting or wild (p.377). So, through investigating the language used to describe coffees, the production of social differences is explored.

One of the differences with Rose’s text is that Elliot does not look at images, such as the logo, to explore how Starbucks marketing works or how they present their various coffees.  Another difference is that the Elliott does not look at how, for instance, the Orientalist discourse generates itself as true, which Rose mentioned that could be done by looking at how Starbucks would reconcile contradictions.

 

References:

Elliott, C. (2001) Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), 369-382.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. London: SAGE.

 

Holt (2004) argues that certain brands nowadays have developed according to identical principles as cultural icons such as James Dean. He asserts that consumers nowadays value some commodities not only for their practical purpose but increasingly for what they symbolize (p.3). This is because these brands are, just as cultural icons, permeated with stories and connotations that become general expressions of specific values which are appreciated by certain consumers. Consumers thus congregate to brands that impersonate the ideas they cherish or to brands that aid them in constructing their identities by helping them  express themselves and the most successful of such brands become iconic (p.4). An example of such an iconic brand is the Italian fashion brand Diesel since it aids consumers in expressing who they want to be through a particular style of clothing and embodies some specific ideas regarding anti-establishment.

In order for a brand to become iconic, Holt (2004) discovered that such brands need to follow certain principles in order to become cultural icons, which he called the cultural branding model (p.6). One of the important axiom is that iconic brands embody identity values for costumers that  focus on the collective anxieties and desires of  society on which costumers can construct their identities (p.6). This identity value is created through identity myths. These are clear fictions, often situated in populist worlds, that address these cultural anxieties from afar which helps the consumer to construct their desired identity in reality (p.8). Another axiom is that this identity myth becomes a symbol for the brand. This means that products become material embodiments of the myth which consumers can experience. This axiom has an economic motif since consumers who use these myths to construct their identities create close emotional relations with the brand (p.8). Another key principle is that iconic brands function as cultural activists whose myths try to let consumers think differently about themselves and is aligned with the society’s identity desires (p.9). The strategy of cultural branding is thus, according to Holt (2004): “To create a storied product, that is, a product that has distinctive branded features, such as design, through which customers experience identity myths” (p.36).

In order to exemplify this logic of cultural branding, I will return to my example of Diesel. When looking on Diesel’s website it is evident that the brand displays an identity myth. Here it is described that Diesel’s philosophy consists of standing for individuality and self-expression. Due to embodying these ideas certain consumers will find these ideas valuable and construct their identity on it. The creating of an identity myth concerning self-expression and anti-establishment is evident in their “Be Stupid” advertisements. In these ads, Diesel states that the regime constantly says to us not to be stupid. However, Diesel sides with stupid because “Stupid is the relentless pursuit of a regret free life”. With these ads they thus create certain identity values and furthermore function as a cultural activist since they try to let consumers think differently about themselves. Since Diesel has created this identity myth around their products they have become a symbol of individuality and self-expression which consumers can experience when they wear their products. The product is thus a passage through which the consumer can experience the myth the brand depicts.

There are also some concerns regarding this cultural branding model. One of the advocators of this is Klein (1999). She states that this new philosophy of brand identity has become an obsession and is infiltrating both public and individual space (p.29). According to Klein the logo had been scaled-up and became very dominant in the mid-eighties. However, by the mid-nineties, iconic brands did not only brand their own commodities but started to brand the outside culture as well (p.48). The brands did not only want to sponsor mayor social events that enhanced their commodities with beneficial cultural and social experiences, but they progressively tried to grab these associations out of the advertisement sphere and make them a lived reality. An example of this is that Disney inflated its sports network ESP1M, a channel for guys who enjoy sitting in sports bars, and launched a line of ESPN sports bars. This has as a consequence that this kind of branding pushes the present culture into the background and elevates the brand to be the star. So, brands do not want to sponsor culture anymore but actually become it (p.49). Klein exemplifies this public brand expansion furthermore with the fact that we now have a 3-D ad takeover with ads covering even whole neighbourhoods. Due to these developments there has been a disappearing of unmarketed culture since brands are now advertising not only on television or magazines but even in music. Tommy Hilfiger, for instance, was sponsoring one of the Rolling Stones’ tours and exploited it as live-action advertising by dressing Mick Jagger (p.66). Klein is thus concerned with the fact that there has been a full integration between ad and art, brand and culture due to this cultural branding strategy.

 

References:

Holt, D. B. (2004). How brands become icons: the principles of cultural branding. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Klein, N. (1999). No space, no choice, no jobs, no logo: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador USA.

 

Semiotics is, according to Berger (2010), the science of signs (p. 4) or as Branston and Stafford (2003) define it as “the study of how things come to have significance” (p.12). The science of semiotics can be traced back two thousand years ago starting with Hippocrates. Modern semiotics, however, began with the work of the Saussure and Pierce.
The importance of semiotics is that due to this approach, social and cultural happenings are not simply viewed as just being  an object or event but entailing meaning, and therefore signs. These entailed meanings are, however, not naturally present in the object or event but are constructed by humans through specific cultural codes. Semiotic theory thus provides, as Berger (2010)  illustrates, a clarification for the manner in which people find meaning in their lives through, for instance, the media they encounter because of these hidden cultural codes that shape their beliefs (p.25).

Since the theory of semiotics focuses on what a sign embodies and what laws they abide to, I will first explain the core concept of semiotics, namely the sign. A sign is something that can be interpreted as having a meaning and can be used to convey information, such as traffic signs. There are two major theories that explain the manner in which signs do this. According to Saussure the sign consisted of two parts, the signifier, which is a world-object, and the signified, which is the corresponding concept (Berger, 2010, p. 5). According to Saussure the relation between those two is not naturally given but arbitrarily made on conventions. According to Peirce, the sign “is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (Berger, 2010, p.9). In contrast to Saussure, he established an approach that had three kinds of signs: symbols, icons, and indexes, depending on the link between the sign and what it entails.

1.Symbolical signs are, according to Peirce, signs for which the relation between the sign and what it stands for are arbitrary (Branston, Stafford, 2003,p.13). This relation is arbitrary since the symbolical sign only obtains a meaning when what the sign stands for  has  been learned by the observer. Because of this the sign is tied to a particular historical and cultural meaning (Berger, 2010, p.14).  An example of such a sign is the blind goddess who is holding a set of scales on the album cover of Metallica’s Justice for All album. This figure does not naturally make the observer think of justice. However, when the observer has learned that the general symbol for justice is a pair of scales which is often held by a blind goddess, then the observer can associate this sign with the notion of justice.

2. Iconic signs are, according to Peirce, signs that resemble what they stand for (Branston, Stafford, 2003, p.14). An example of an iconic sign is a photograph since a photograph of, for instance, the Alps signifies the Alps in the real world due to its resemblance to it. This sign differs from the symbolical sign since there is no arbitrary relation between the sign and what it stands for but rather the direct opposite, the sign resembles what it stands for and does not have to be learned.

3. Indexical signs are signs in which there is a causal relation between the sign and what it stands for (Branston, Stafford, 2003, p.14). This can be exemplified with the fact that if you see a burned section of a forest this is an indexical sign that there has been a fire earlier which has burned the trees. This sign differs, just as the iconic sign, from the symbolical sign in the manner that the sign does not have to be learned beforehand in order to grasp it. The difference with the iconic sign is that the indexical sign does not resemble what it stands for but what it stands for is a result of something.

Now that some key terms in semiotic theory have been explained and exemplified I will briefly explain how semiotics is used as a research method. Branston and Stafford (2003) explain that semiotics is a very efficient research method when you want to examine how the media structures the assumed realities that they describe to the audience (p.12). This is because semiotics asks important questions regarding how meaning is being produced in and through language and culture. Berger (2010), on the other hand, exemplified the use of semiotics as a research method with the book Mythologies (1957) by the semiologist Roland Barthes (p.12). In this work Barthes conducted a semiotic analysis of French media and consumer culture. He illustrated how semiotics, combined with Marxist theory, could clarify how products, such as butter or soap, were being offered to the French audience and the various mystifications and covert ideologies discovered in the presentations for these products.

 

References:

Berger, A. A. (2010). The objects of affection ; Semiotics and consumer culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Branston, G., & Stafford, R. (2003). The media student’s book. London: Routledge.

My name is Bente and I am a Dutch second year student in Arts and Culture at Maastricht University. This year I am following the Media culture specialisation since media are increasingly important and influential phenomena in our contemporary society. This blog is dedicated to one of the courses of this programme called Logo and Imago. Since this course often focuses on brands, I will briefly discuss how I see the role of brands and products in our contemporary society.
I personally think that brands are nowadays very prevalent in our contemporary consumer culture since you constantly see advertisements for all sorts of brands when you are, for instance, walking around any city, but nowadays furthermore increasingly online. Through these advertisements, brands try to promote their products as well as to create a certain imago for their brand through their marketing strategy. Although not everyone is as sensitive to the imago’s  and lifestyles that  brands create around themselves, it is still an important aspect of consideration for many people when they have to buy products. When a brand is, for instance,  associated with a natural and cruelty-free imago certain people are more inclined to buy their products because of this particular imago that the brand creates for itself. Because of this brand imago and the manner in which these alter consumers buying behaviour, brands are thus important and prevalent in our contemporary society.