DISCOURSE ANALYSIS II

In the last blog post, we looked at Discourse Analysis I which concerns itself mainly with the “rhetorical organization and social production of visual, written and spoken materials” (Rose, 2001, p. 162). In contrast to this, Discourse Analysis II “focuses on the articulation of discourses through institutional apparatuses and institutional technologies” (p. 186). The object of inquiry is thus often a place that constitutes itself as an institution, such as a school, a museum, a hospital or a prison. Both types of discourse analysis share, in their Foucauldian tradition, the attempt to unravel underlying structures of power relations and subject roles. One of the potentially first accurate discourse analysis of an institution is offered by Foucault in his famous work Discipline and Punish where he takes a closer look at the change in penal style which he observed in post-medieval Europe. While public torture and execution, so physical pain, as a means to educate the masses died out, static prisons that heavily relied on institutional routine and deprivation of rights as punishment gained importance. Foucault unveils that “organization of visuality and spatiality” (Rose, 2001, p. 165) played an important role in producing what he calls “docile bodies” (p. 166), bodies deprived of individual rights that had to conform to the rules and the guards they were subjected to. Visuality, as the key aspect of this new form of penal style, achieved its central feature: the docile bodies, the prisoners, disciplined themselves. In a state where they were constantly seen but never saw and the guards were always seeing and never been seen – in other words surveillance – anyone would be too afraid to act out and be punished for that, and therefore adheres to the rules. Discipline was thus guaranteed simply by the illusion of an ever-present gaze and the fear of punishment. Foucault found this idea in practical, architectural expression: The Panopticon, as envisioned by Jeremy Bentham. As you can see in the image below, it is the manifestation of constant surveillance.

Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the Panopticon Prison.

 

When conducting a Discourse Analysis II, we look for two main aspects. First, the institutional apparatus, which refers to the “architecture, regulations, scientific treaties, philosophical statements, laws, morals” (p. 166) and the discourse present in them. Simplified, it’s the ‘bigger picture’ of the object we under scrutiny. On the other hand, institutional technologies ask us to take a closer look at the “practical techniques used to practice that power/knowledge” (p. 166). In Rose’s example of a museum, the internal layout, the architecture of the halls and the people present in the setting (curators, funders, visitors) constitute the apparatus. The latter is especially interesting since we can find clear social positions that are created and maintained by the discourse of the museum. The form of displaying artefacts, their organization according to time or culture and the labeling in panels or catalogs constitute technologies of the institution ‘museum’. The discourse present in this example is one of culture and science. The idea is traced back to a different type of discipline than the one used in the prison. Here, visitors are civilized in their manners and morals. However, many other discourses can be found at a closer look: there might be for instance a racial discourse in the way how or where ethnic groups are displayed. Organisation is a crucial factor to look out for in this regard: by organising a museum through its architecture, nomenklatura or displays in a certain fashion, often an artificial development narrative is created.

The entrance hall to Natural History Museum New York

The T-Rex in the hall became a symbol of the museum,
not only because of its role in Night At The Museum

Displaying life-like scenes in glass cages can be found all over the NHM
but at closer scrutiny they are reiterating a male-dominant discourse

This form of display is called ‘Reconstruction’.

Reminded of the Panopticon? This is actually a modern art museum in Prague.

Museums or prisons are, of course, not the only institutions that can be analysed through Discourse Analysis II. On the opposite, if we believe Foucault, practically all spaces where humans interact will reiterate some form of power relations in the way they are built, designed and organized. Let’s have a look at another prominent example:

The SUPERMARKET.

By now, most people have heard or read that supermarket use tricks to guide us into buying their products. The infamous example of the shelf with chocolate bars and other sweets right at the cash desks that triggers especially kids to annoy their parents until they give in and put the product on the counter. From what we learnt above, we know now that this would feature into the ‘institutional technologies’ used for displaying.

Ever found yourself in the sweets shelf at the cash? Who hasn’t?

But let’s look at the bigger picture first. The architecture of a supermarket. Imagine an ALDI or LIDL. The first thing we notice is that they have a separate door to enter the supermarket and another door to exist it. The customer is thus forced to at least take walk two rows, one up and one down, to get near the cash desks and be able to leave the market again. The rows are organized in very similar fashion in all markets. The cooled items are usually at the back or even at the back opposite to the entrance, again forcing the customer to walk past all the other products. The first row, at least in Germany, usually features sweet and salty snacks and alcohol. Those are all our little sins and triggered right when we start shopping, we might give in and take that bottle of wine or that bag of chips. ALDI and LIDL are also interesting as they do not pay much attention to the way of displaying their products in an appealing fashion, as for instance visible in BIO markets such as WHOLEFOODS in the states. Their advantage is their price, so products are usually in their transportation boxes placed on the shelf so that the product is neatly ordered and visible.

ALDI. The famous German discounter that spread to the rest of the world.

No neat and tidy display on the shelf. What matters is efficiency
so why care to pack everything out of boxes?

Big signs with special offers are another common trick.
2.79 instead of 2.99 – what a deal!

WHOLEFOODS relies on different techniques. Already the architecture and inner design are very different. Rows are not as neatly defined, especially the fresh food area is open and reminds customers of a market.  Food is displayed open and with very much care for detail. Fruits and vegetables are often ordered according to color which almost resembles art, creating some sort of higher value or meaning in food which is problably often seen as a more primal need. The philosphy present is that food is central to our life and health and that it matters where it comes from. It speaks to younger families, aware of their diet and the effect it has on the environment. ALDI’s philosophy, on the opposite, is all about ‘smart shopping’as you can see in the image above. It aims to increase efficiency in buying and, since it is a discounter supermarket also catering to material needs beyond foods, is therefore a good choice for the lower to average income family. Of course, these peer groups are not exclusive and lines are blurry but we can see that supermarkets follow different philosophies.

WHOLEFOODS follow a different philosophy.
Shopping should not be done purely efficiently but consciously!

Does this not remind you of art? The technology of display is open,
reminding us of a market-space. It induces thoughts of freshness and nature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *