Viewing Foucauldian Discourse - Assignment Example

Discuss to what extent a Foucauldian approach to dis is postmodern? Introduction Foucault’s approach to dis offers a unique perspective on interpreting and analyzing the use of language. Regarded as a poststructuralist approach, discourse analysis goes beyond the attempt to search for underlying structures and patterns to interpret the use of language. This paper discusses the extent to which Foucauldian discourse can be regarded as a postmodern approach. The postmodern approach is characterized mainly by a rejection of any claim to offer a comprehensive or universal explanation and interpretation of social phenomena. Postmodernism removes the human agent from the centre of the creation of meaning and places it in the midst of language games that can be difficult to explain. Understanding Discourse Analysis In a general sense, discourse refers to the use of verbal and non-verbal signs communicate meaning to intended audiences. However, Foucault views discourse analysis as an exercise in interpreting a representation of reality that is contingent on cultural influences (Foucault, 1970). Foucauldian discourse analysis is based on analyzing a discourse to identify power relationships between the creator and the audience. Such power is expressed through verbal and non-verbal means. As a result, language occupies a very important place in Foucauldian discourse analysis. Language is one of the tools that are used by people and institutions to exercise control over others in the group. In this way, Foucauldian discourse analysis enables the researcher to understand the influence of power in social relationships. These relationships occur in various social settings such as in the family, religious community, political party and business organization. Ideology of a particular group is communicated to an audience in a particular language that makes it increasingly persuasive and likely to be accepted. Unlike other forms of discourse analysis, Foucauldian analysis helps to illuminate the political interests and power in the creation and dissemination of discourse. This approach analyzes the methods used in the creation of statements and the methods used to determine truth and knowledge. The Foucauldian approach to discourse is influenced by the ideas of Wittgenstein and Nietzsche. In particular, the idea that creating and revising definitions indicates a shift of power inspired Foucault to perceive discourse as indeterminate and uncertain (Wittgenstein, 1972). Understanding Postmodernism Broadly speaking, postmodernism is an approach that rejects the existence of any grand metanarrative to explain social phenomena and events. Like poststructuralism, it states that meaning is not determined by structure and is unstable (Lyotard, 1979). In addition, postmodernism also assumes that meaning is not limited to the confines of the text; in fact, meaning is embedded in the use of language and is heavily shaped by the context (Lyotard, 1979). The main way in which postmodernism differs from other critical approaches is that it denies the existence of any fixed or eternal truth (Lyotard, 1979). Postmodernism also differs from other related approaches such as poststructuralism in that it is more focused on aspects such as knowledge, power and cultural changes. These elements are also reflected in Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis. In this sense, the Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis can be termed as postmodern. The emphasis on knowledge, power and culture makes the Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis postmodern because it does not attempt to account for all aspects of a society and retains its focus on particular aspects. Foucauldian discourse analysis also reflects the postmodern tendency to reject a coherent narrative of all knowledge. Instead, knowledge is believed to be localized within particular time and place contexts (Wittgenstein and Anscombe, 1972). This compartmentalization of knowledge and the adoption of a contingency-based approach is also a hallmark of postmodernism (Rorty, 1989) that is found in the Foucauldian discourse analysis. In other words, the so-called grand narrative is replaced by a contingency-based approach to analyzing written, oral or non-verbal use of language. Viewing Foucauldian Discourse as a Postmodern Approach Postmodernism is thus based on the assumptions of an unstable language where the meaning is always contingent on how it is used. The language is viewed as a tool for creating a simulacrum of reality (Rorty, 1989). Irony is one of the most common tools used to shape meaning that is beyond the structure of the language (Rorty, 1989). In this way, the Foucauldian discourse analysis attempts to go beyond the structural bounds of the text and interpret meanings in how the knowledge is used to create and exercise power. A postmodern critical theory basically attempts to critique the accepted assumptions of truth and knowledge by making all perceived knowledge and truth localized in a particular context. Postmodernism also acknowledges the historical aspect of truth and knowledge in that the shaping of knowledge and truth confers power over the shapers who then use it to exercise power and control over others. Among the various topics that Foucault pursued in developing his critical theory are discourse analysis and the relationship between power and knowledge. His views on power and knowledge are widely shared by the postmodern school of thought. It is based on de-centering the human subject from the creator of meaning and focuses on the political relationships involved in the creation and perpetuation of meaning through knowledge. In the Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis, emphasis is given to several facets of the text such as the accepted modes of reasoning and distinguishing true from false statements. Most importantly, the Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis is also interested in the power and status conferred on those who proclaim truth from falsehood. Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis is based on exposing the regimes of truth which are created as a result of scientific studies and are perpetuated through the exercise of power vested in institutions (Foucault, 1998). The knowledge which is in fact localized and contingent on certain temporal and geographical conditions is thus taught as an eternal truth to the public (ibid.). Institutions such as educational institutions, media and political parties play a vital and active role in delivering this perception of truth to the intended audiences. In performing discourse analysis, the Foucauldian approach aims to discover the rules by which truth and falsehood are distinguished and separated in the text (ibid.). In addition, the influence of institutional and personal power in creating this distinction is also studied in this approach. The ultimate goal of the Foucauldian approach of discourse analysis is to identify the economic and political power that is reinforced through the discourse (Foucault, 1998). The concepts of gaze, objectification, embodiment, and episteme play important functions in discourse analysis as they help to separate the human agent from the text and to encourage the analysis of text as an object (Foucault, 1973). In Foucauldian analysis, these concepts also help the researcher to separate the scientific from the non-scientific. The entire Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis is built on the assumption that discourses are formed as a result of acknowledged epistemes of knowledge. When these are localized and separated from the human agent, the underlying rules of identifying truth can be discovered. Role of Knowledge and Power Foucault’s discourse analysis and the analysis of knowledge and power in particular are important concepts in organizational studies. The Foucauldian principle of power as knowledge implies that institutions that are vested with the power to impose order and discipline in society are able to enforce their desired knowledge and truth upon others (Foucault, 1991). The Foucauldian discourse analysis studies the ways in which power in organizations is manifested in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Power relations are thus embedded in the interpersonal relationships and authority structures of organizations (Weick, 1979). Organizations and individuals within them use various forms of power to exert control and direct the actions of subordinates. They have the power to reward, punish, persuade as well as repress, mask and conceal actions and words. The power is also used to create knowledge and truth to achieve their aims (Foucault, 1991). By using power to create and communicate knowledge and truth, organizations are better able to exercise control over a longer period than by using power to punish or discipline (Foucault, 1991). The knowledge and truth so created is then perpetuated by scientific discourse and logic. Through these means, organizations use power to gain acceptance of and implement new strategies as well as substituting new strategies for old ones (Foucault, 1998). Hence, such discourse can reinforce power as well as undermine it. Foucauldian discourse analysis studies objectification and subjectification in the organizational context. People in organizations can be objectified through dividing practices such as having certain employees situated at a distance from other employees. On the other hand, subjectification is a process where the employees are actively involved in self-formation and analysis of their own self in relation to their environment. Organizational Studies in the Light of Foucauldian Discourse Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis can be employed to the study of organizations. In organizational studies, the Foucauldian approach is divided into the early archaeological phase and the later genealogical phase. It is the latter phase with its emphasis on observation of actual practices and behaviour which is more suited to the study of organizations and cultures. At the same time, the archaeological approach emphasis the tradition of digging deep into the assumptions and motivations of organizational behaviour and culture to locate underlying structures and forms. While this is a useful approach, the genealogical approach is closer to postmodernism in its rejection of any basic underlying structure that determines the course of organizational behaviour. The genealogical approach to organizational studies is also more appropriate because it acknowledges the changing nature of the organization and explains how organizational systems experience transition from one state to another. The genealogical approach also incorporates the contingency approach in its analysis of organizational systems, thus making the genealogical approach closer to the postmodernist approach. The genealogical approach also eschews the desire for detailing a grand narrative tracing the progress of the organization towards an end-state. The transitions in the organization system are perceived as contingent upon the external environment and there is no belief in the most evolved end-state towards which each transitionary stage is directed (Barley, 1986). While studying organizational culture, for instance, the genealogical approach considers questions that relate to how organizational culture is perceived differently at different life stages of the organization. It studies the factors that shape the perceptions and assumptions about organizational culture at various points of time and in various contexts. Foucauldian discourse analysis has been used to inform organizational studies in many ways. The discourse approach to organizational studies came as a reaction to the earlier rational approaches to the field. In contrast to searching for underlying structures and patterns, the discourse analysis approach of Foucault stressed upon the futility of searching for recurring patterns and forms in an environment that was characterized increasingly by complexity and change. This has become particularly true in the present context as organizations frequently adapt in terms of structure as well as culture to environmental forces (Weick, 1995). Rapid changes in technology, consumer preferences, sources of competition and international market regulations mean that organizations have to respond to new threats and opportunities through new strategies. The same holds true for organizational employees whose actions and behaviours are in response to new challenges such as growing diversity and changing norms about sexism, ageism and sexuality (Kostera, 2008). New work practices such as telecommuting, job sharing, absence of a lifetime employment and dual earners in the family evoke new behaviours and responses in employees. All of these can be analyzed through the genealogical approach of Foucauldian discourse analysis. The researcher can thus engage with the environment in a variety of ways to observe and analyze behaviours in the organizational setting such as interviews or passive observation (Kostera, 2007). Bartley (1986) offers a unique perspective on the use of field study in ethnographic studies and the challenges of stereotyping and bias in interpretation. Interpersonal relationships, the use of power and communication systems can be analyzed through Foucauldian discourse analysis. If the organizational culture at Google is taken as an example, the main features such as a flat management hierarchy, promotion of a team spirit, freedom to work on personal projects, and soliciting employee suggestions indicates that power is shared in the organization rather than controlled. In terms of Foucauldian analysis, by diffusing power throughout the organization, the management facilitates the sharing of knowledge that is a key requirement for developing innovative technological products. A google-o-meter to rate employee suggestions illustrates how the power to shape and validate knowledge is shared in the organization. Conclusion On the basis of the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that the Foucauldian approach to discourse can be regarded as a postmodern approach. Both approaches consider the localization of knowledge and attempt to analyze the factors upon which knowledge and truth are contingent. Knowledge and power appear to be intrinsically linked in the Foucauldian analysis of organizational discourse. This is illustrated in the organizational culture at Google where sharing of power facilitates sharing of knowledge to promote innovation. Both the approaches offer unique perspectives on various aspects of organizational studies such as organizational culture and communication. References Barley, N., (1986). The innocent anthropologist: Notes from a mud hut. Penguin Books. Foucault, M., (1970). The order of things. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M., (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. New York: Random House. Foucault, M., (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M., (1998). Power. New Press. Kostera, M., (2007). Organisational ethnography: Methods and inspirations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kostera, M., (2008). Mythical inspirations for organizational realities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lyotard, J. F., (1979). The postmodern condition. University of Minnesota Press. Rorty, R., (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity. University of Cambridge. Weick, K. E., (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Sage Publishing. Weick, K. E., (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publishing. Wittgenstein, L., (1972). Philosophical investigations. Prentice Hall. Read More