This post will focus on the concept of discourse and discourse analysis as a method. Rose (2001) introduces discourse analysis 1, which mainly focuses on the rhetorical organisation and social production in different sources (p. 163). Elliot (2001) uses discourse analysis as a method for Starbucks’ marketing and branding strategies. Michel Foucault’s work has been significantly influential to this method.

Rose defines the concept of discourse, by referring to groups of statements and knowledge, what structures the way a thing is considered on which we base our actions, without creating rules (p. 136). It can be seen as a form of power everywhere disciplining the subjects. Moreover, “human subjects are produced through discourses” producing the world as it is understood (p. 137). Rose argues discourse can be articulated through diverse forms and meanings of discursive images (p. 136). The formation of discourses is connecting these meanings. Rose argues Foucault’s claims are rather vague, but he developed two types of Foucauldian methodologies, from which she evolved the discourse analysis 1 making it an academic method.

According to Rose, discourse analysis consists mainly of texts, images and intertextuality.” Discourse refers to all forms of talk and texts,” (2001, p. 141). The production and organization of the discourse is done by finding relevant sources and looking them with fresh eyes, following flexibly the hints what are revealed. The vital element is in the detail, which means investigating the sources by immersing them and identifying the key terms (p. 158). At the same time, it can be said the discourse analysis is also about ‘zooming out’ because it gives background broadly to the whole case. It is about quality, not the amount, to examine the effects of truth paying attention to the complexities. Importantly, the focus is not only on the visible but also invisible aspects. Ideally, it connects the sources, which are not necessarily obviously linked together. Moreover, this method is multimodal critical analysis, which is based on wide range of texts, images and cultural practises. It can be said that the concept discourse is a complex structuring of cultural conventions like communication and aesthetics. Theses discourses are produced socially, not individually so social mobility is essential in the research focusing on the strategies of persuasion to see how it effects the truth (p. 140).

Elliot uses the discourse analysis to explore how Starbucks’ socially constructed concepts and objects to constitute the world. She uses this method in a slightly different way to identify how Starbucks changed the way we drink coffee, by not only selling coffee but the whole experience. This shows how an institutional entrepreneur uses discursive strategies to transform the embodied meaning of coffee. Elliot uses discursive analysis to explore the symbolic and socio-cultural significance of the business: Especially the multi-layered meaning of coffee and the discourses surrounding it (2001). The interest is on how the company constructs packages and presents coffee by making the coffee bean an exciting symbol. She analyses the change of coffee places and habits in Starbucks divided into three parts of concepts, abstracts and institutions.

Starbucks exposes its origins as visible: It does not matter where it is from but ‘the destination is in your cup,’ (p. 373). The categories of different coffee tastes are introduced with expressions, like exotic, giving a new dimension to its space (p. 374). Also, she argues sensitivity to this comes from the awareness of these new places in the world presented as stereotypes. Elliot highlights the usage of exoticism as the coffee beans are distanced from their origins and relocated in America’s coffee culture with different meanings. In this way, Starbucks uses geographic recombination to use a space of consumption or origin as a stylistic feature: These foreign beans heighten the coffee’s consumer appeal also fitting to their lifestyles (Elliot, 2001). For example, they have Italian names changing the American coffee habits as radicalized discourse, it gives to the place its style.

Rose and Elliot focus on the knowledge and power discourses give through rhetoric structures, like descriptions of coffee. Elliot establishes how Starbucks’ tries to teach people of tastes and characteristics through pictures and texts what Rose highlights as well. They both emphasis the aspect of intertextuality, showing the interrelation between works by creating links with referencing to improve understanding of works. Elliot mainly refers to text about orientalism to provide background about the mysterious third countries. She focuses on changing the discourses in the Western world by emphasising these countries’ exoticism.

They both argue discourse is a social matter. Although, Elliot’s discourse analysis differs from the discourse analysis 1 by Rose, which emphasis more rhetorical strategies. Elliot refers a bit as well to discourse analysis 2, not limited to texts and having lesser emphasis on images unlike Rose, using an institutional location and structure as a discourse of social context and its actors. It focuses more on the company and its values, and Rose focuses on the detailed analysis of more concrete sources and not investigating the institutions in the discourse analysis 1, but rather 2.

References

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: Sage. (Chapter 6: Discourse Analysis I).

Elliott, C. (2001). “Consuming Caffeine: The Discourse of Starbucks and Coffee,” In: Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), pp. 369-382.

(2017). The brand logo of Starbucks coffee through the years. [image]. Retrieved from http://www.coffee.org/History-of-Starbucks.