Discourse, Knowledge, Materiality, History

Abstract

Discourse analysis has come to represent something of a `growth industry' in both research and critical psychology. Despite the apparent indebtedness of many such methods of discourse analysis to Foucault, there exists no strictly Foucauldian method of analysing discourse. Through a close reading of Foucault's `The Order of Discourse' (1981a), this paper re-characterizes the concept of discourse from a firmly Foucauldian perspective. Whilst not arguing against discourse analysis per se, the author indirectly takes issue with erroneous applications of Foucault's conceptualization by clarifying his perspective on what discourse is, and on what `discursive analysis' should entail. This critical presentation of the Foucauldian notion of the discursive will be contrasted with two prominent approaches to discourse analysis in psychology, namely those of Parker (1992) and Potter and Wetherell (1987). Key issues in this regard revolve around the themes of knowledge, materiality and history. By outlining the core components of what Foucault (1981a) terms `the order of discourse', and through the exposition of a four-step `method' of discursive critique, the author propounds an image of what a Foucauldian discursive analytic method may have looked like, should it have ever existed, before specifying exactly why one never did.

Meta-semiotics and Practical Epistemology

“…It is not just seen as pollution, but it functions, materially, as pollution, and can have local or even global toxic effects, for instance on the ozone level. Hook (2001) also usefully points to the contribution made by Foucault on the relationship between author and discourse, and says that 'Instead of asking about what is revealed by authors in their texts, Foucault suggests we ask instead about what subject positions are made possible within such texts' (p. 527).…”

What can we say about substance use? Dominant discourses and narratives emergent from Australian media

“…Moreover, the analytic procedures adopted were limited in terms of their comprehensiveness, with Lawrence et al (1999) failing to indicate the theoretical underpinnings of their approach and conclusions; and Elliot and Chapman limiting their analyses to the subject positions available in the texts without consideration of the discourses within which these positions were situated, nor the institutions being reinforced by these discourses. Indeed, as Hook (2001) noted this lack of comprehensiveness when conducting discursive analyses renders superficial interpretations, yet is frequently observed in the literature.…”

Jämställdhet som assemblage

“…Ytterst är min ansats i den här artikeln grundad i en ambition att belysa hur diskurser om jämställdhet fungerar både som instrument för, och effekter av, makt. Det vill säga, jag vill bidra till en djupare förståelse omkring hur diskurser om jämställdhet konstruerar och möjliggör specifika maktrelationer, och hur dessa diskurser sedan används för att rättfärdiga de maktrelationer som har konstruerats (Hook 2001;Foucault 1981). Detta är också orsaken till att jag valt att analysera just de samhällsarenor som jag undersöker i den här artikeln.…”