Foucauldian discourse analysis

Foucauldian discourse analysis is a form of discourse analysis, focusing on power relationships in society as
expressed through language, and based on theories of Michel Foucault.

Theory

Besides focusing on the meaning of discourse analyzed, the distinguishing characteristic of this approach is its
stress on power relationships as expressed through the language, and the relationship between language and
power.[1][2] This method tries to analyze how the social world, expressed through language, is affected by
various sources of power.[1] As such, this approach is close to social constructivism, as the researcher tries to
understand how our society is being shaped (constructed) by language, which in turn reflects various power
relationships that surround us.[1][2]

Beyond just vocabulary, the analysis attempts to understand how individuals view the world, looking at
categorizations, personal and institutional relationships, ideology, and politics.[3]

This approach has been inspired by the works of Michel Foucault, but also by those of Jacques Derrida,
psychoanalysis, and critical theory.[3]

Foucauldian discourse analysis, like much of the critical theory, is often used in more politically oriented
studies, and is preferred by scholars who criticize a more traditional discourse analysis for failing to take into
account the political implications.[4]

Process

Kendall and Wickham outline five steps in using "Foucauldian discourse analysis". The first step is a simple
recognition that discourse is a body of statements that are organized in a regular and systematic way. The
subsequent four steps are based on identification of rules on:

 how those statements are created;

 what can be said (written) and what cannot;
 how spaces in which new statements can be made are created;
 making practices material and discursive at the same time.[5]

Areas of study

Studies employing the Foucauldian discourse analysis may for example look at how figures in authority use the
language to express their dominance, and request obedience and respect from those subordinate to them. In a
specific example, a study may look at the language used by teachers towards the students, or military officers
towards conscripts. This approach could also be used to study how language is used as a form of resistance to
those in power.[1]

DISCOURSE, or POWER/KNOWLEDGE (a rough definition):

In the simplest sense discourse is conversation, or information. For Michel Foucault it is through discourse
(through knowledge) that we are created. Think of it this way: If it is true that we are the sum of our experiences
(the knowledge we encounter), then those in control of our early life experiences have enormous power. In an
isolated family, a child's knowledge depends upon just a few people. In a sense, those few people create the
child's identity. The child cannot know anything but what is communicated by them.
Discourse joins power and knowledge, and its power follows from our casual acceptance of the "reality with
which we are presented" (Peter Weir, dir., on his The Truman Show). If our identity  is created by the media, as
it is increasingly, our world view is limited to the world view of those isolated, rich, individuals; we are made to
think that we, too, should have a mercedes (thereby making those in control even richer). Discourse is created
and perpetuated by those who have the power and means of communication. Those who are in control decide
who we are by deciding what we discuss. All discourse acts this way. For example, by inundating us with
images of the Star Wars prequel, the media limits us to the Force and Yoda, not allowing us to see a segment
on, say, poverty in rural America.

According to Foucault, truth, morality, and meaning are created through discourse. Every age has a dominant
group of discursive elements that people live in unconsciously. In the past, the idea of individualism was
prominent in American discourse. To not be individualistic, i.e. be "communist," was to be evil. So that
discourse in a college class, more specifically, will ultimately privilege ideas of what is normal ("good" and
"normative" morals); by stressing these values, education will implicitly marginalize those who don't hold those
values.

Visualize discourse as an arrangement of ideas and concepts within which the world is known--or a box of
crayons. The fact that we do not know a "color" (burnt umber, for instance) makes us reject that color out of
hand and this makes perfect sense: If we can bring no past knowledge to bear on a new "color" it is natural to
reject that "color" as perverse, that is, unnatural. Discourse assists in explaining how historical events like the
Red Scare occur.

Change may only happen when a new counter-discursive element begins to receive wide attention through the
means of communication. If you are within the discourse of the South during the time of slavery, as a slave you
will only understand yourself in the terms that this discourse allows. In other words, the slave (often) believes
and conforms to the picture that this discourse draws of him or her. Naturally, the master 's free will is just as
much curtailed. Change requires the possession of the means of communication, of self representation. Note: a
discourse is never totally "pure;" it will always contain some measure of counter-discursive elements.

I want to stress that while I think Foucault very persuasively explains how power works and why some people
perform very irrational acts, it has some serious drawbacks. Within Foucault's world view there is no absolute
morality. Morality is created through the exercise of power. What this means ultimately is that if one were to
take Foucault to his extreme, there would be no basis for saying that any act that we typically think of as
immoral is in fact immoral. There are of course foucaultian responses to this argument.