Michel Foucault: Discourse

by | 17 Nov 2017

Key Concept

The idea of discourse constitutes a central element of Michel Foucault’s oeuvre, and one of the most readily appropriated Foucaultian terms, such that ‘Foucaultian discourse analysis’ now constitutes an academic field in its own right. This post therefore sets out to describe Foucault’s notion of discourse, and to define in broad terms the task of Foucaultian discourse analysis.

Foucault adopted the term ‘discourse’ to denote a historically contingent social system that produces knowledge and meaning. He notes that discourse is distinctly material in effect, producing what he calls ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’.1Michel Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language (1969) (trans. AM Sheridan Smith, 1972), 135-140 and 49. See also M Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ in R Young (ed) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (1981). Discourse is, thus, a way of organising knowledge that structures the constitution of social (and progressively global) relations through the collective understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse as social fact.2In this aspect, Foucault and Jacques Lacan’s ‘discourses’ on discourse overlap, although their focus diverge. Whereas Lacan considers discourse from the point of view of psychoanalysis and, thus, the inter-subjective setting, Foucault considers discourse from the structural point of view of institutions and power. See J Lacan The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (2007) (trans. R Grigg). For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurally related to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historical period in which it arises. However, discourses are produced by effects of power within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules and categories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth within the discursive order. These rules and categories are considered a priori; that is, coming before the discourse.3Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above). It is in this way that discourse masks its construction and capacity to produce knowledge and meaning. It is also in this way that discourse claims an irrefutable a‒historicity.4Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above) 126-134. Further, through its reiteration in society, the rules of discourse fix the meaning of statements or text to be conducive to the political rationality that underlies its production.5Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above) 126-134.  Yet at the same time, the discourse hides both its capacity to fix meaning and its political intentions. It is as such that a discourse can mask itself as a-historical, universal, and scientific – that is, objective and stable. Accordingly, Stephen Gill describes Foucault’s concept of discourse as ‘a set of ideas and practices with particular conditions of existence, which are more or less institutionalised, but which may only be partially understood by those that they encompass.’6S Gill ‘Globalization, Market Civilisation and Disciplinary Neoliberalism’ (1995) 24 Millennium – Journal of International Studies 399, 402.

As a discourse fixes text7Following Derrida, I use ‘text’ to denote both the written and the spoken word. See, GC Spivak ‘Translator’s Preface’ in J Derrida Of Grammatology (1967) (trans GC Spivak, 1997) ix. with a specific meaning, it disqualifies other meanings and interpretations. Foucault speaks of this discursive process as reducing the contingencies (the other meanings) of text, in order to eliminate the differences which could challenge or destabilise the meaning and power of the discourse:

In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality.8Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ (note 1 above), 53.

One of the ways in which this is achieved is through the commentaries of discourse: the statements or texts which continually reaffirm the meanings enacted by the discourse, without ever breaching the discursive paradigm. Foucault explains thus:

Commentary averts the chance element of discourse by giving it its due: it gives us the opportunity to say something other than the text itself, but on condition that it is the text itself which is uttered [re-iterated] and, in some ways, finalised. The open multiplicity, the fortuitousness, is transferred, by the principle of commentary, from what is liable to be said to the number, the form, the masks and the circumstances of repetition. The novelty lies no longer in what is said, but in its reappearance.9Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above), 221.

Through this reiterative process discourse normalises and homogenises, including upon the bodies and subjectivities of those it dominates, as Foucault explores in Discipline and Punish 91975), and in some of his later lecture series.10In his later work Foucault discusses how subjects internalise the order of discourse and reproduce its meaning and truth outwardly through confession or even through their own discourse. See, particularly, M Foucault On the Government of the Living: Lectures at the Collège de France 1979-1980 (trans. G Burchell, 2014). By fixing the meaning of text, and by pre-determining the categories of reason by which statements are accepted as knowledge, a discourse creates an epistemic reality and becomes a technique of control and discipline.11Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ (note 1 above). That which does not conform to the enunciated truth of discourse is rendered deviant, that is, outside of discourse, and outside of society, sociality or the ‘sociable’. With effect, Foucault demonstrated these discursive practices of exclusion in the categories of reason and madness in his first major work, Madness and Civilisation.12M Foucault Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (1961) (trans. R Howard, 1973).

However, it is in one of his last published works that we find a compelling description of the function of discourse analysis as a technique of critique and problematisation: The Will to Knowledge: History of Sexuality Volume I.13M Foucault The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality Volume 1 (1976) (trans. R Hurley, 1998). With respect to sexuality and the discourse which produces its historical meaning, Foucault writes:

Why has sexuality been so widely discussed, and what has been said about it? What were the effects of power generated by what was said? […] The central issue, then, is […] to account for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said. What is at issue, briefly, is the over‒all ‘discursive fact’, the way in which sex is ‘put into discourse’.14Ibid, 11.

What Foucault sets out in broad terms is the task of discourse analysis, for it must ‘account for the fact that [the discourse in question] is spoken about’, and analyse the effects of power that are produced by what is said. Moreover discourse analysis must seek to unfix and destabilise the accepted meanings, and to reveal the ways in which dominant discourses excludes, marginalises and oppresses realities that constitute, at least, equally valid claims to the question of how power could and should be exercised.

Rachel Adams is a Chief Researcher at the Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa

  • 1
    Michel Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language (1969) (trans. AM Sheridan Smith, 1972), 135-140 and 49. See also M Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ in R Young (ed) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (1981).
  • 2
    In this aspect, Foucault and Jacques Lacan’s ‘discourses’ on discourse overlap, although their focus diverge. Whereas Lacan considers discourse from the point of view of psychoanalysis and, thus, the inter-subjective setting, Foucault considers discourse from the structural point of view of institutions and power. See J Lacan The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (2007) (trans. R Grigg).
  • 3
    Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above).
  • 4
    Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above) 126-134.
  • 5
    Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above) 126-134. 
  • 6
    S Gill ‘Globalization, Market Civilisation and Disciplinary Neoliberalism’ (1995) 24 Millennium – Journal of International Studies 399, 402.
  • 7
    Following Derrida, I use ‘text’ to denote both the written and the spoken word. See, GC Spivak ‘Translator’s Preface’ in J Derrida Of Grammatology (1967) (trans GC Spivak, 1997) ix.
  • 8
    Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ (note 1 above), 53.
  • 9
    Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge (note 1 above), 221.
  • 10
    In his later work Foucault discusses how subjects internalise the order of discourse and reproduce its meaning and truth outwardly through confession or even through their own discourse. See, particularly, M Foucault On the Government of the Living: Lectures at the Collège de France 1979-1980 (trans. G Burchell, 2014).
  • 11
    Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ (note 1 above).
  • 12
    M Foucault Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (1961) (trans. R Howard, 1973).
  • 13
    M Foucault The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality Volume 1 (1976) (trans. R Hurley, 1998).
  • 14
    Ibid, 11.

27 Comments

  1. Dear Rachel Adams,

    THANK YOU very much for writing and publishing this, I believe that this is one of the most clear, concise and helpful texts I’ve read about Foucault and Discourse Analysis.

    I am novice researcher trying to learn Foucaultian Discourse Analysis, and this is invaluable for me!

    Thank you,
    Paula.

    Reply
    • Thanks very much Paula, and all the best with your research.

      Reply
      • Dear Madam,
        Very enlightening. So easy you have made it. Can you in one of your writings unravel the apriori categories of reason on which works Foucault’s discourses?

        Reply
    • Easy to understand…Thank You

      Reply
    • You can also read my recent paper

      Just google Foucauldian discourse analysis by Tauhid Hossain khan

      Reply
  2. If you had to assign one short reading from Foucault’s ouevre on ‘discourse analysis’ to undergraduate Communications students, what would it be?

    Reply
    • Thanks for your question Sarah. For a short(ish) piece by Foucault on discourse, it would have to be:

      M Foucault ‘The Order of Discourse’ (1970) in R Young (ed) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (1981).

      For a thorough appraisal of Foucault’s “method” of discourse analysis, I would also suggest:

      D Hook ‘Discourse, Knowledge, Materiality, History: Foucault and Discourse Analysis’ (2001) 11 Theory and Psychology 521.

      Reply
      • Thanks so much for your reply, Rachel. I second Paula’s comment above; you offer a really concise and helpful breakdown of the concept here.

        Reply
      • Thanks

        Reply
  3. thanks Rachel for the concise and precise explanation of the concept.

    Reply
  4. What is the perfect way to site this?

    Reply
  5. It is very clear and easy to comprehend.But there is question regarding discourse that whether one should take discourse in a positive sense or in a negative sense?

    Reply
    • Greetings.
      Thanks for this simple analysis.

      Can I use this ‘theory’ to research the ‘perceptions of African students on the decolonization of education curriculums in South Africa’? I am trying to link it with the Conflict Theory and the Critical Race Theory.
      Thanking you in advance.

      Reply
    • According to Foucault discourse can be negative or positive and repressive or liberating because everyone of us is the subject of discourse. We always try to follow some rules or breaking some but my point is that rules is also a product of Discourse. So when we follow the rules that is positive nature or when we break this that is negative nature. These all the ideas are the products of Knowledge and the Knowledge is produced by Epistemologically that controled by the Power. So the conclusion is that Society governes by the Power and they always try to dominate on us by religion, education, discipline, ideas, and so on more things that gives us and ideology that weather you make a mistake then you should be punished (Foucault’s DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENT).

      Reply
  6. Excellent, straightforward explanation. Thank you!

    Reply
  7. i have previously strugled with this understanding, but u have done a great job in making it simple to understand.
    thanks for this

    Reply
    • Thanks for making me better understand this theory of Foucault. It will definitely help me out in my research analysis paper.

      Reply
  8. Thank you so much, I am doing post grad study and was struggling to understand what discourse meant from my other readings, you have described it clearly in a way I can understand.

    Reply
  9. Thank you very much

    Reply
  10. A precise analysis. Thanks. Now I can clearly see the production of natives or ruled subjects within the discourse constructed by the occupational structures. It works amazingly.

    Reply
  11. Despite the fact that I read a host of articles and studies that discussed, debated and even utilized Foucouldian ideas about discourse, I consider this brief contribution as being among the easiest to digest.

    Reply
  12. hi Rachel Adams,
    Your write up is concise and extremely helpful in understanding.
    I am trying to understand environmental debates in terms of class(powerful and powerless ) and religion. could you suggest some readings that put environment debate through Foucauldian discourse.? and if any other analysis by any scholar which is much more helpful .
    much thanks in advance

    Reply
    • Foucauldian discourse analysis by Tauhid Hossain khan & Ellen MacEachen

      Reply
      • thanks Tauhid.

        Reply
        • Welcome!

          Reply
  13. Dear Rachel Adams

    The way you brought out the nuances of the concept of discourse is really appreciable. Otherwise Foucault, for most of persons like me, is a hard nut to crack. The points which you have mentioned are self explicable. Just wanted to know whether you can put some examples for day to day lives of discourse analysis keeping aside those give by Foucault himself.

    It’ll be really beneficial to understand the concept in a much better way.

    Thanks anyways for this post…

    Reply
  14. I am a bit confused. I did not find the stanza cited in 8th reference. I found nothing in 53 page no. as given in the article. Are the citations or reference original or forged? I have cited the same in my work and now I am scared of plagiarism as I did not find the text in the referenced address.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

POSTS BY EMAIL

Join 4,741 other subscribers

We respect your privacy.

Fair Access Publisher
(pay what you can, free option available) 

↓ just published

PUBLISH ON CLT

Publish your article with us and get read by the largest community of critical legal scholars, with over 4500 subscribers.