4.2 Discourse
47
4.2 Discourse
A Foucauldian approach is based on the assumption that subjects are contradictory by
nature because their worldviews are influenced by different and sometimes contradictory discourses (Cameron, 2001). Discourse, through a Foucauldian-informed poststructural lens, refers to how written, spoken, visual and gestural language constitutes
social practices and contributes to everyday lives (Bloor & Bloor, 2013; Fairclough,
2001; Gavey, 1997; Willig, 2001). Consequently, discourse as interpretive statements
articulated through language, constructs objects and ‘subject positions’ in particular
ways (Gavey, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1994).
To Foucault (1970, 1980, 1982) power is established through discourse, and both
discourse and power are tied to the building of knowledge (Pennycook, 2001).
Foucauldian understandings of discourse and power are based on the notion that
discourse does not refer to language as a mere system of symbols, but as a product
of social relations, practices and organisations in different times in history. However,
according to a Foucauldian perspective, it is inappropriate to consider discourse as
a mere reflection of social identities and relations, because discourse is constitutive,
continuously changing and reconstructing identities and relations as discourses are
enacted (Pennycook, 2001; Walshaw, 2007).
Language is a form of discursive production (Starks & Trinidad, 2007). Language
reflects society’s dynamic and often conflicting social practices, which in turn also
alter language meanings. Language meanings vary according to an individual’s,
political, historical and cultural context and to the discourses they adopt (Kincheloe
& McLaren, 2002). Language is not exclusively referential (Cameron, 2001), or a
“transparent” tool to describe “the real world” (Davies, 1990, p. 342). Language is
never neutral and impersonal, but rather, it constructs people’s identities and everyday
practices. However, language is never solely one’s own. For instance, when the
speaker produces language, semantic structures, accents and symbolic views (Davies,
1990, 1991), it belongs not only to the speaker but also to the listener, who will make
use of his/her own interpretative schemata to make sense of the message conveyed
(Davies, 1990, 1991).
The way language is structured and/or pictorially expressed may reveal multiple
and multi-layered concurrent discourses (Davies, 1991; Gavey, 1997). These
discourses are not necessarily complementary, they may be conflicting and in a
process of transformation (Hartman, 2015). Discourse, as a product of language
construction and utterances, is in constant motion. From a Foucaudian perspective,
there is no such thing as ‘natural’ or ‘universal’ discourses, but rather dominant
discourses that strongly influence decisions and discursive practices (Davies, 1991;
Foucault, 1970; Gavey, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1994).
Some discourses are so deep-seated in a society that they are taken-for-granted as
‘common sense’ (Willig, 2001). These are difficult to challenge because they reflect
entrenched and shared assumptions. However, dominant discourses may change over
time if alternative discourses become accepted in wider society (Willig, 2001). In this
book, I consider how language is used in relation to social investment, by highlighting
47
4.2 Discourse
A Foucauldian approach is based on the assumption that subjects are contradictory by
nature because their worldviews are influenced by different and sometimes contradictory discourses (Cameron, 2001). Discourse, through a Foucauldian-informed poststructural lens, refers to how written, spoken, visual and gestural language constitutes
social practices and contributes to everyday lives (Bloor & Bloor, 2013; Fairclough,
2001; Gavey, 1997; Willig, 2001). Consequently, discourse as interpretive statements
articulated through language, constructs objects and ‘subject positions’ in particular
ways (Gavey, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1994).
To Foucault (1970, 1980, 1982) power is established through discourse, and both
discourse and power are tied to the building of knowledge (Pennycook, 2001).
Foucauldian understandings of discourse and power are based on the notion that
discourse does not refer to language as a mere system of symbols, but as a product
of social relations, practices and organisations in different times in history. However,
according to a Foucauldian perspective, it is inappropriate to consider discourse as
a mere reflection of social identities and relations, because discourse is constitutive,
continuously changing and reconstructing identities and relations as discourses are
enacted (Pennycook, 2001; Walshaw, 2007).
Language is a form of discursive production (Starks & Trinidad, 2007). Language
reflects society’s dynamic and often conflicting social practices, which in turn also
alter language meanings. Language meanings vary according to an individual’s,
political, historical and cultural context and to the discourses they adopt (Kincheloe
& McLaren, 2002). Language is not exclusively referential (Cameron, 2001), or a
“transparent” tool to describe “the real world” (Davies, 1990, p. 342). Language is
never neutral and impersonal, but rather, it constructs people’s identities and everyday
practices. However, language is never solely one’s own. For instance, when the
speaker produces language, semantic structures, accents and symbolic views (Davies,
1990, 1991), it belongs not only to the speaker but also to the listener, who will make
use of his/her own interpretative schemata to make sense of the message conveyed
(Davies, 1990, 1991).
The way language is structured and/or pictorially expressed may reveal multiple
and multi-layered concurrent discourses (Davies, 1991; Gavey, 1997). These
discourses are not necessarily complementary, they may be conflicting and in a
process of transformation (Hartman, 2015). Discourse, as a product of language
construction and utterances, is in constant motion. From a Foucaudian perspective,
there is no such thing as ‘natural’ or ‘universal’ discourses, but rather dominant
discourses that strongly influence decisions and discursive practices (Davies, 1991;
Foucault, 1970; Gavey, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1994).
Some discourses are so deep-seated in a society that they are taken-for-granted as
‘common sense’ (Willig, 2001). These are difficult to challenge because they reflect
entrenched and shared assumptions. However, dominant discourses may change over
time if alternative discourses become accepted in wider society (Willig, 2001). In this
book, I consider how language is used in relation to social investment, by highlighting