In her introduction to the notion of discourse, Rose (2001) highlights that it forms the bedrock of the work of French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault, particularly of his theoretical arguments and methodology. According to Rose, 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). This means that discourse constitutes a form of knowledge about the world, which determines how one understands the world and all that is performed in it. She also considers Lynda Nead (1988:4)’s explanation of discourse as “a particular form of language with its own rules and conventions and the institutions within which discourse is produced and circulated” (Rose, 2001, p.136), and argues that discourse produces subjects.

Rose posits that discourses are communicated through visual and verbal images and texts, as well as through the practices those languages permit (Rose, 2001, p.136). She stresses that due to the wide array of forms that discourse can be communicated, intertextuality is crucial to gain a proper understanding of discourse. Intertextuality entails that the meanings of a discursive text or image is dependent on the meanings embodied in both that text or image, as well as other images or texts. Moreover, she contends that visuality should be considered a form of discourse as a particular visuality will make some things visible or invisible in some ways, which will then lead to subjects being produced and acting within that periphery of vision. This is closely related to the concept of discursive formation, which refers to “the way meanings are connected together in a particular discourse” (Rose, 2001, p.137).

Discourse is seen as powerful. According to Foucault, discourse is powerful due to its productivity. It is able to streamline subjects into particular ways of thinking and acting, which allows human subjects – or our sense of self – to be produced through discourses. “Objects, relations, places, [and] scenes” are also created through discourse (Rose, 2001, p.137), hence producing the world as it is able to make sense of. With power comes resistance, and some discourses are more prominent than others as they originate from “socially powerful institutions” (Rose, 2001, p.138), or because they “claimed absolute truth” (Rose, 2001, p.138).

According to Rose, discourse analysis I focuses on the notion of discourse as communicated through different kinds of visual images and verbal texts, rather than the practices engendered by certain discourses (Rose, 2001, p.140). It is primarily concerned with discourse, discursive formations and their productivity, as briefly mentioned previously. Iconography – a method developed by art historian Erwin Panofsky – helps to find relevant sources to comprehend visual images. This method is focused on the “subject matter or meaning of works of art” (Rose, 2001, p.144), which lies in the understandings of symbols and signs in art. Panofsky puts forth that a profound familiarity with the texts and common sense is required to understand the potential secondary and intrinsic meanings of an image.

Inevitably, discourses are embedded with complexity and contradictions, one of which may be explained by what Potter (1996) terms as ‘interpretive repertoire’ (Rose, 2001, p.156), referring to the diverse array of arguments that may be produced by a discursive formation in specific social contexts.

Elliot (2001) provides a comprehensive analysis of how Starbucks markets its coffee, hence transforming coffee into a symbolic commodity across the globe. She highlights that the “cultural “text”’ of coffee embodies different layers of meaning in both the form and discourses of coffee (p.371). In this case, the form refers to the coffee bean or beverage, while the discourses are the packaging and marketing of the aforementioned. This also bears significant implications for the social relations as well as work and leisure culture for countries that consume coffee; most notably, coffee, though an imported commodity, now serves as a marker of Western consumer society and identity.

In line with Rose’s discussion on the power relations tied in with discourse, Elliot shows that Starbucks’ discourse exemplifies how some discourses are able to dominate others due to what Foucault refers to as the ‘regime of truth’. The persuasiveness of Starbucks’ discourse – or its marketing – lies in its ability to successfully articulate their claims of what is “the truth”, and make consumers buy into it. Elliot (2001) demonstrates this through Starbucks’ racialized rhetoric. More specifically, Starbucks’ categorizes its coffee so that consumers consume them symbolically and according to taste, not place. It also leverages on the Orientalist discourse, which paints the foreign East as exotic and primitive. In doing so, Starbucks is essentially imposing its own “truth” on what embodies the cultures of different countries. For instance, it describes its coffees from these countries as “wild”, “magical” and “exotic” (Elliot, 2001, p.377), thus imbuing these cultures with its own symbolic meanings, as well as its perception on what will sell best. Starbucks’ powerful discourse is also seemingly contingent on the ignorance of consumers. As Elliot aptly expresses, “unsuspecting consumers must choose from beans from countries that college graduates cannot find on a map” (Elliot, 2001, p.374). This elucidates yet another reason why Starbucks has managed to dominate discourses pertaining to its coffee – by capitalizing on the cluelessness of consumers, which allows it to wield its power in its marketing.

Reference List

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage. (Chapter 6: Discourse Analysis I)