Ordering Discourse: Ways of Constituting Knowledge - Essay Example

Ordering Discourse: Ways of Constituting Knowledge Foucault conceptualizes discourse as the “ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledge and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the nature of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern.” He goes to explain this term by saying that it should not be taken as the equivalent of language or assumed to have a relation with reality. Discourse does not simply translate reality into language; rather discourse should be seen as a system which structures the way that we perceive reality (Mills 55-60). We desire to order discourse because it creates our world. By shaping our view of the world, pulling together chains of associations that produce a meaningful understanding, and then organizing the way we behave towards objects in the world and towards other people. In this way it generates a world of our everyday life. The world is constructed socially through a complex interaction between experience, upbringing and education. Discourses as chains of language play an important role by binding us together as social beings and in this way construct our understanding of social reality (Bernauer and Carrette 221-255). Discourse generates knowledge and truth such that it does not only constitute the world we live in but also all forms of knowledge and truth. Knowledge for Foucault was not something that existed independently of language. Knowledge is not simply communicated through language: all knowledge is organized through structures, interconnections, and associations that are built into language. Certain discourses in certain contexts have the power to convince people to accept statements as true. This power may have no relation to any objective correctness of the statement (Mills 55-90). We also desire to order discourse because it says something about individuals who speak it. Discourse does not only communicate the intended meaning of language but also something about the speaker of the discourse. By analyzing the discourse a speaker uses it is easy to tell something about the speaker such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity and class or even about the relationship that the speaker has with the people around him. A look at medical discourse for example, it gives the doctor the power or authority to speak over their patients (Bernauer and Carrette 221-255). We order discourse because it is related to power. Discourse is intimately involved with socially embedded networks of power. Certain discourses enable specific types of people to speak the truth or to be believed when speaking on specific subjects, they also give individuals degrees of social, cultural and political power. Doctors for example are more believed when they talk about physical or mental illness and this way they have the authority to recommend courses of action or patterns of behavior. In early societies religious authorities wielded tremendous power because they had the power to speak about the divine. This power was caught up with their specific position but was also based on the fact that religious discourse suffused all of life, shaping social organization and influencing how people interpreted the world (Mills 55-90). There are a few problems with language that discursive ordering aims to solve. These include how people use language such that there is no common language that is used universally. In discursive ordering it is important that people share the same language so that they can understand one another in the process of their discussion. Secondly language contains symbols that are interpreted differently by different people. Discursive ordering aims to look for common symbols that can be used in order to generate the desired meaning so as to avoid misunderstanding. This is especially true with people of different ethnic orientation where one symbol may have multiple meanings and therefore bring about confusion and misunderstanding in communication (Sage 7-18). Foucault believes in every society discourse production is at one moment controlled, selected, organized and redistributed by certain procedures whose primary role is to ward-off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events and to evade its heavy, challenging materiality. He identifies three ordering procedures- procedures of exclusion, internal procedures and conditions of access to discourse (Hook 523-545). In procedures of exclusion he identifies several methods in which discourse is controlled, organized, selected and redistributed. These include prohibition such that the topic may be forbidden and so is the speaker or the occasion. For example sexuality is often forbidden but proliferates through discourse instead of being extinguished. Another method is rejection for example the discourse of madness and reason. Madness if often rejected and taken as noise but it is circular and is often seen in expressions. The third method is the opposition between truth and falsity (Hook 523-545). Internal procedures on the other hand are principles of order that are found within the discourses themselves. These include commentary- the division in canonical texts and their commentaries. There exist some texts which are considered privileged such as in law or religion and others that are just commentaries of the major texts. The second is the author who is another principle of refraction in discourse. The authors name has different uses and values in scientific discourse and in literary discourse. Scientific authors are at the moment not treated as authorities while on the hand in literature it is the author that gives language unity, coherence and reality. Individuals are defined by the other and changed as he/she pleases. Disciplinarily: disciplines are anonymous systems in contrast to the author and commentary. Disciplines require new formulations and propositions on a constant basis. They define the type of discourse that is appropriate and one that will be used for and be accepted as part of the discipline. Disciplines also control the production of discourse such that they provide limitations to what can be said within that discipline. They represent at one point an element of constraint and at other times can be seen as elements of creation and proliferation (Hook 523-545). Conditions of access to discourse as expressed by Foucault include: (1) the qualification of a person to enter the order of the discourse and this can only happen through rituals; (2) Societies of discourse which function to preserve the discourse and make them circulate within a closed space; (3) doctrines –these belong to a group, they are disseminated and with time require individuals allegiance to them; (4) Appropriation- this takes place through systems such as the education system (Hook 523-545). Works Cited Bernauer, James William and Jeremy R. Carrette. Michel Foucault and theology: the politics of religious experience. London: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. Hook, Derek. "Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history : Foucault and Discourse Analysis." Theory and Psychology (2001): 11(4), 521-547. Mills, Sara. Michael Foucault. New York: Routledge publishers, 2003. Sage. "What is discourse and why Analyse it." 2007. Sage Publishers. 27 November 2011 . Read More