In order to understand the term discourse analysis, it is vital to note that discourses are socially produced rather than created by individuals. More closely examined and in coherence with Rose (2001), it refers to “groups of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking” (p. 136). That said, she describes it as a type of “knowledge” (p. 136), which determines how we initially perceive our surroundings and subsequently behave. In this paradigm, art for example, does not relate to visual images anymore but to the “knowledges, institutions, subjects and practices which work to define certain images as art and others as not art” (p. 136). Rose (2001) proceeds to elaborate on discourse analysis as a research method by outlining several other key terms, often by drawing on the works of Foucault (1972; 1977; 1979): intertextuality, discursive formation, power, knowledge and regime of truth. Intertextuality is important because meanings derive from a number of texts, images etc. and thus, discourse analysis must address other images and texts rather than just one discursive material. Correspondingly, discursive formation refers to the connection of meanings throughout these materials – i.e. the relations and correlations between the meanings inherent to a particular discourse (p. 137). Power, then, articulates the productivity of a discourse. Humans as well as objects, relations, places and so on are produced by discourse, yet power is not something “imposed from the top of society down on to its oppressed bottom layers” (p. 137), but simply is being constructed everywhere – not only in institutions but within society as a whole (in the way we speak etc.). As a consequence, power constitutes knowledge and the most powerful discourses “depend on assumptions and claims that their knowledge is true” (p. 138). It is thus the task of discourse analysts to detect power relations (e.g. within an advertisement or in the way people dress), to describe what power looks like, how it becomes visible and where it comes from. As opposed to placing power and knowledge within a broad context, semiotic analysts aim to find truth or rather power relations immediately, e.g. in an image.
As a consequence, power constitutes knowledge and the most powerful discourses “depend on assumptions and claims that their knowledge is true” (p. 138). Lastly, a regime of truth depicts the grounds for claiming truths. Rose (2001) differentiates this particular type of discourse analysis by stressing that it is about visual images and verbal texts rather than practices (of institutions) formed by specific discourses (p. 140). What she calls ‘discourse analysis I’ hence adheres to the questions how a particular social world is constructed as real, truthful or natural by the means of certain regimes of truth. It subsequently aims to reveal what effects this construction has on the people involved. She states the example of the discursive construction of London’s East End in the 1880s, which is constituted by the ways bourgeois commentators produced an account of this working-class area (social production) and the effects this had on its residents (social effects) using for example contemporary newspapers, travel diaries, novels and governmental documents (pp. 141-142). In terms of the rhetorical organization of discourse, Rose (2001) formulates several steps, namely the investigation of every element of an image and their interrelation, the identification of key themes, the production of a list featuring these words or images including the coding of the repetitions of these key themes and, ultimately, the detection of connections between and among these key words and images (p. 150; p. 158). In the process, it is also essential to acknowledge absences, i.e. what is not said, as well as to locate the social authority of the source’s origin and its targeted audience (pp. 158-159).
Now, some of the method’s attributes as voiced by Rose (2001) can be related to Elliott’s analysis of Starbuck’s branding strategies (2001). Here, Elliott (2001) elaborates on the discourse surrounding the contemporary marketing of coffee and its representation of global culture by the means of a particular case study: Starbucks’ construction and representation of coffee. By paying special attention to slogans, wording and packaging, the author reveals how Starbucks constructs stereotypical images of foreignness and Third World countries through the ‘Western gaze’. Initially, Elliott (2001) states that meaning resides within the ‘artifact’ itself (coffee bean / beverage) as well as around its form (packaging / marketing). Coffeehouses went from forums for political discussions and learning to centers of socializing (p. 371). In the meantime, imported coffee beans transformed into a marker of Western consumer society and identity (p. 371). The author proceeds to trace this development from the 1920s until today, stressing that the origins of this import were insignificant or even masked back then. Fair trade coffee and later on Starbucks ultimately changed this marketing practice by emphasizing the variety of exotic origins.
Throughout the two videos, it becomes evident that Starbucks tries to link its product to exotic places all over the world through very emotional rhetorics and visual material. The articulation and sometimes masking of origins is a style that the company utilizes for semantic purposes (Elliott, 2001, p. 375). Starbucks even goes further by mixing, blending and geographically recombining places of origins in order to add value to their coffee flavours as they refer to rather ‘banal’ products. Consequently, customers can order a “place in a cup” (p. 376), while accuracy in terms of the product’s origin becomes secondary. Meanwhile, Starbucks creates its own world of coffee, instead of introducing the world’s coffees. Elliott (2001) continues to analyse semantic expressions on the packaging such as ‘wild’, ‘magical’ or ‘earthy’, which adhere to the concept of ‘orientalism’. Accordingly, the “Western gaze” (p. 378) ultimately results in the stereotypical representation of the ‘mysterious East’.
Elliott thus addresses other meanings deriving from related materials, which Rose (2001) titles intertextuality: The author elaborates on coffee as an imported commodity and on how attached meanings changed over the course of time (from ‘banal’ to premium; comparison to sugar as a similar, foreign commodity). He relates the concept of orientalism to key terms and hence creates discursive formation. Elliott (2001) also includes contradictions and ‘invisible’ details by pointing out how Starbucks advertises the origins of some coffee sorts and leaves out the place of origin of its ‘House Blend’. By keeping up the global order of the West on the one hand and the ‘mysterious East’ on the other hand, Starbucks actually maintains this particular regime of truth – the ‘normal’ way of seeing the world from a Western perspective. The practice of refraining from labeling the house brand fits perfectly into this picture.
References
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.
Elliott, C. (2001). “Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee” In: Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), pp. 369-382.