The notion of discourse is central to Foucault’s methodology. Discourse “refers to groups of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking” (rose,2001, p.136). It is a language of its own rules which creates our ideas and shapes how the worlds and things are understood. It produces subjects and subject positions. There are two other terms that stressed in Rose (2001) relating to the concept of discourse. One is intertextuality, meaning the way that the meanings of any one discursive image or text depend not only on that one text or image, but also on the meanings carried by other images and texts” (p.136). The other term is discursive formation. “A discursive formation is the way meanings are connected together in a particular discourse.”
For Foucault, discourse was a form of discipline relates to power relations. Discourse is powerful because it is productive, disciplines subjects to think and act in certain ways and create human subjects through it.
Discourse are enunciated through an enormous scope of pictures, text and practices. It focuses on “various kinds of visual images and verbal texts than it does to the practices entailed by specific discourses” (Rose, 2001, p.140). Through drawing on sources that have been utilized or unused materials that one discovers, discourse analysis unites materials that have been viewed as inconsequential.
In discourse analysis I, there are two aspects that can be analyzed through this method. It can be used to study how world views or accounts on social issue. It can focus on the discursive power (p.141)
Rose’s (2001) quote points the endeavors to make discourse analysis more explicit “First, there is the analysis of the structure of the discursive statements. Second, there is a concern for the social context of those statements” (p.149).
On the rhetorical organization of discourse, is to look at how a discourse is structured, like how a discourse describe things, construct responsibility and categorize things. There are seven strategies that Rose (2001) summarized in interpreting the rhetorical organization of discourse. The sevens are
“1) looking at your sources with fresh eyes.
2) immersing yourself in your sources.
3) identifying key themes in your sources.
4) examining their effects of truth.
5) paying attention to their complexity and contradictions.
6) looking for the invisible as well as the visible.
7) paying attention to details.” (p.158)
The other aspect of discourse analysis I look at the social production of discourse. It takes account into the institutional location of a discourse, the social position of the speaker of statement in effect of authority, the audience of the image and text. Location and authority are important consideration in the social production of discourse because it affects the power of certain statements in the discursive formation. The assumed audience also matter because an explanation of the same event can be different for different audiences.
In Elliott (2001) analysis of the discourse of Starbucks, she using concepts of discourse to reflect on the Starbucks’ strategy and discursive formation. She analyzed Starbucks’ effort to market and brand their coffee into a symbolic new way of consuming. Elliott (2001) also reveals Starbucks’ stereotyped representation of foreignness of coffee beans.
The text Elliott gathered as materials are what called the cultural “text”. As texts in discourse analysis does not only mean written texts. In Elliott (2001) he used both discourse analysis I & II as classify by Rose (2001).
Elliott uses discourse analysis I in her study through analyzing the material in the Starbucks stores. That includes the image in Starbucks stores, the packing of Starbucks coffee beans, the phrases that Starbucks uses to describe their coffee and coffee beans on the Starbucks menu to show that how Starbucks analysis how Starbucks change the meanings of consuming coffee. These discourses are the Starbucks break with the standard way of consuming coffee, close to nature. And also show how the misleading geographical deception of coffee beans from Third Worlds space and racialized rhetoric of it shows the orientalist discourse of Starbucks.
Elliott (2001) also includes some elements that do not fit in the method discourse analysis I. It also involves aspects like discussion on hoe Starbucks as an institutional entrepreneur engages in discursive strategies producing new concepts, objects and subject positions/institutions of coffee drinking. The aspect of institution is the focus of discourse analysis II that will be discussed in the next assignment.
Reference List:
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage. (Chapter 6: Discourse Analysis I)
Case Study and Methodological Application
Elliott, C. (2001). “Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee” In: Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), pp. 369-382.