Discourse analysis II pays close attention to how the practices of institutions and their use of visual and verbal texts work to create systems of power and control. While Discourse analysis I is more concerned with the visual and verbal texts and how they construct a discourse, Discourse analysis II concerns itself more with the work of institutions in producing forms of power and order.
As Rose argues, institutions work in two main ways in order to construct social order and power relationships. The first way is through their institutional apparatus. Institutional apparatus refers to the notion of the forms of power and knowledge which constitute any given institution. These, for example, could refer to wide ranging areas such as an institutions architecture,
regulations, philosophical statements, laws, morals and how these articulate a particular discourse.
The second way Rose argues that institutions work to articulate a discourse is through their institutional technologies. This area is harder to define but can be understood as the practical techniques an institution might employ in order to practice forms of power and knowledge. These technologies are used by the institution in a way which controls and defines the behaviour of people subject to the institutions discourse. For example in museums technologies of display such as glass cases, in discouraging the touching of certain artefacts or exhibits, produce ‘docile bodies’ as they led into behaving in a certain way in line with the institutions discourse.
Because of the focus of the second kind of discourse analysis is on apparatus and on technology it lends itself better to investigation of processes and production of discourse rather than detailed analysis of individual images. Discourse analysis II focuses on the production of discourse and its reception by audiences of discourse and its effects on them. Key examples of sources that can be investigated by this kind of discourse analysis include institutions such as prisons, schools, museums and galleries.
For my concrete example of an institution i have chosen the University of Maastricht Guesthouse. Following Roses method it is possible to explore how the Guesthouse as an institution manages the behaviours of its residents and maintains order through the use of institutional apparatus and institutional technologies.
The institutional apparatus of the Guesthouse is clear in its desire to maintain a social order among its residence. Firstly there is a long list of printed rules that are glued to the inside of each residents bedroom door. This list of rules cannot be removed and is ever present in the room of the resident. These rules dictate to residents their length of stay, how many people are allowed in each room at any given time and a number of ground rules relating to orderly behaviour. Beneath this 13 rules the Guesthouse reminds residents of their right to evict any resident if the rules are broken. These rules serve to keep residents orderly with a well visible threat ensuring they are reminded that the guesthouse is not their home, but rather temporary accommodation that they do not have automatic rights to.
There are also examples of institutional technologies that the guesthouse employs to remind residents of the top down power structure that exists. They hire security personnel on short term contracts to patrol the halls throughout the day and the night. The short terms ensure that residents do not form strong relationships with security and so their presence is always slightly alien. And, while they are not always presence, their irregular rotations and patrols mean that residents see never entirely sure when security will arrive. Similar to Foucaults pan-opticon residents self discipline themselves helping to ensure that order is maintained without round the clock surveillance.
The guards also are able to access all doors in the building whereas residents are only able to open their own corridors and bedrooms. This means that they are both aware of their place in the building, where they are allowed access to and where not. It also means that distinct communities form on each corridor as it is harder for residents to interact with those on other floors without express permission from someone living on another corridor.
Clear the institution of the guesthouse employs both apparatus and technologies to ensure the good beahviour of its residence and is particularly preoccupied with maintaining order withing the guesthouse. The residents, or rather ‘guests’, are often reminded of their temporary residence and their obligation to uphold the guesthouse order lest they be evicted.
Saying this however, there does remain opposition to this power regime. Residents do not always follow rules. They decorate their rooms, cover the rules on the door, place objects in the doors to wedge them open to encourage illicit movement through the building and even attempt to befriend the faceless security in a move to break their anonymous power.