Tutorial 4 – Discourse analysis II

The two DA methods overlap however although they work with similar materials DAII is “much more concerned with their production by, and their reiteration of, particular institutions and their practices, and their production of particular human subjects” (Rose, 2001, p. 164). The two DA also differ in terms of how they define the term archive, DAI analysts regards archive as the material for the analysis. In DAII archive would be regarded as an institution in itself and the analysis would focus on revealing the consequences of its particular practices of classification for the meanings of the things placed within it.

DAII has its origin in Foucault’s description of power, surveillance and institutions that govern these discourses such as in this case the prison. Foucault looked for example at how (rather than why) penal style changed, it went from being a public spectacle with executions to being an institutional routine. In this change the prison as an institution was established and Foucault was very interested in the emergence of new professions concerned with who needed to be punished and who would carry out the punishment. A new subjectivity arose for those being punished, he called this the docile body, the body subjected to the new penal diciplines and which had to conform to it. A key point for Foucault was that in this new regime of punishment these docile bodies in a sense disciplined themselves. This was achieved by visuality, by never really knowing when they were being watched the inmates learned good behavior by disciplining themselves through the fear of being watched, the institution that carried this out was called a panopticon. It was argued that this model could be used for all sorts of disciplining institutions such as hospitals, schools, mental institutions and workhouses. The sort of visuality where one subject is seen without ever seeing Foucault called surveillance and he argued this to be an effective way of producing social order and it became the dominant form of visuality in modern day capitalist societies.

Foucault divided the working of the institutions into ways of operating, through their apparatus or through technology.

Institutional apparatus is the form of power or knowledge which constitute the institution, for example the architecture laws, morals, regulations and so on, and the discourse articulated through these apparatuses. The institutional technologies on the other hand are the practical techniques used to assert said power or knowledge. “Technologies are diffuse rarely formulated in continuous, systematic discourse…often made up of bits and pieces… a disparate set of tools and methods” (Rose, 2001, p. 167). Photography is sometimes argued as a technology that must be viewed in this sense due to that it has no identity of its own. The use of photography varies with the power relations that invests in it. The practice and its nature vary depending on which institution is using it and for what purpose.

The emphasis put on institutional apparatuses and technologies is what sets DAII apart, the attention is no longer on the details of individual images but on the process of their production and use. This type of DA focus most on the sites of production and assemblage in their social procedure.

Analysts concerned with this method of DA can for example look at museums and art galleries as institutions which assert institutional power and knowledge, through the images displayed and the surrounding materialized discourses in the form of for example architecture and subject positions. The analysis should also put emphasis on the technologies used and in this case, that would be the technologies of display such as: display cases, reconstructions or open display (Rose, 2001).

An example of an institution which could be analyzed using the method DAII could be McDonald’s and the case study could for example revolve around the discourse or knowledge that McDonald’s crates to convince their customers that their food is a healthy and fresh choice. If one were to carry out a such a discourse analysis one could put focus on the institutional technologies used to create such a discourse. In this case, I visited our local McDonald’s here in Maastricht and gathered some observations.

 

Texts on display was a common attribute in the restaurant both as a way of providing information in the form of a menu and written on the walls describing ingredients and their attributes.

Another way to convince customers that their discourse is the truth is by using photographs as a representation of truth which is this case was used to a great extent since a lot of their food is deployed via pictures throughout the entire restaurant.

Other possible aspects of analysis for this method are the layout and decoration of the room which in this case provides a discourse that says, playful, modern, whimsical, and accessible. McDonald’s try to bestow all these discourses on their customers by the way they present their product which is food by the surrounding environment reflecting the attributes they want their food to eject.

The message and knowledge bestowed upon visitors using these discourses is that McDonald’s food is easy, modern, fresh, fun and accessible and these messages are conveyed not by trying the actual food or regarding any texts or images but by simply studying the surrounding institution and its technologies.

 

References:

Rose, G.
(2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.

Leave a Reply

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