Example Of Rhetorical Analysis Foucault

Michel Foucault’s initial intent was not to analyze the phenomena of power and discourse, “nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis” (Foucault). His objective was to examine the main aspects of how human beings are made subjects. He came to the conclusion-that in order to understand how individuals become subjects, you must acknowledge the power relations within a society.
Michel Foucault’s theory of power and discourse was first created/published in his book “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.” In this publication he analyzes how the prison system is part of a larger entity of power that is dispersed all throughout a social structure.
Foucault believes that the most crucial element in order for power to take place
is freedom. In the book “The Essential,” by Foucault he states that “power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are “free.” Likewise, not only does power have to have repression and a force that says no, but it must also influence pleasure, form knowledge, and produce discourse-“It needs to be considered as a productive network that runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression” (Foucault).
One of the most recent publication using this theory is a book titled “The Government of Childhood Discourse, Power and Subjectivity” by Karen Smith.
In Smith’s book she focuses on how Foucault’s concepts in regards to government practice, power, are very relevant to childhood in the west during the early modern period to the present (Smith). She explains in her book, that throughout a children’s childhood- the government within that specific society/community already has predictability and control over the child’s future and is automatically labeled a subject- furthermore it includes how power is practiced and how the methods of power used changes over time when it comes to children’s childhood in a social
structure.
The theory of power and discourse is important to communication scholars because within every society there is always going to be authority taking place, some governing power. In order to understand why an institution runs a particular way and the manners that take place from the subjects (citizens) in that particular governed realm, including the authority-you must understand why and how power functions. Power is the accumulation of actions that influence others and follow from one another. Power is a part of complex network of how and why we choose to or not to communicate with others.
Today the key scholars that focus on how discourse is an essential quality for those who practice power and have authority over the majority within a society (also known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)) are Norman Fairclough, Teun van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak.
Fairclough focuses immensely on the study of how enterprises function through the theory of discourse and power. In addition, “He has also addressed how to integrate theory and method in order to promote social change” (Tracy, Martinez-Guillem, Robles, and C’asteline). As for Dijk, and his studies- he argues that in order to understand the process of discourse you must also present cognition to the concept of discourse as well. Lastly, with Wodak, she explores how particular genres of discourse change over time (Tracy, Martinez-Guillem, Robles, and
C’asteline).
Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies
David Howarth, In this article David Howarth explains how discourse and power influence policy making in government and how hegemony results from power and discourse and politics. The study focuses on explaining how power is exercised in politics and how discourse shapes the power structure of the government. Howarth argues that power is exercised in government almost exclusively by policy making. Policy making starts with discourse and obviously the most powerful individuals and groups in the room tend to come to the forefront of the discourse. These power individuals and groups tend to steer the discourse towards the policies that they are more in favor of and when the discourse turns into policy making the final decisions are wielded by those who are in power or who the dominant group is. Soon a pattern is made and the policies become institutions, these policies and institutions tend to favor members of the dominant group who has established the policies therefore skewing the lines of society and constructing new practices and regimes. Howarth applies this train of thought to many different political structures that have risen and fallen throughout history and those that have stabilized themselves and had general dominance. Howarth concludes by offering a five step system by which one can regulate the presence of hegemony and power in political discourse and therefore be able to have better policy making for society as a whole.
The Baltic States from the Soviet Union to the European Union: Identity, Discourse and Power in the Post-Communist Transition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Richard Mole In this study Mole examines the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and their relationship with the Soviet Union, their independence, and their subsequent joining of the European Union. It goes further elaborating on how all of these relationships were related to the issue of identity in each of these Baltic States and the role that power played in making these identities. The exercise of power over the Baltic States had been wielded by the Soviet Union as they were a part of the Soviet Union ever since the Warsaw pact was signed and this distinctly shaped the identity of the generation born under the rule of the Soviets. The Baltic States chafed against the power wielded against them but also grew accustomed to having assistance from the Soviets and being a part of a nation that makes decisions centrally for the whole of a giant nation. The collapse of the Soviet Union prompted the Baltic states to fight and win their independence that they had sought for so long and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were independent for the first time in over 40 years. Yet this presented a problem considering the majority of the people that were now independent’s identities were shaped by the power that Russia had over them, as they were not familiar with political autonomy and the power and responsibilities that came with it. Thus all three nations felt it was necessary to give up some of their hard fought freedoms and join the power structure that is the European Union. This all proves that groups that are used to being dominated by more powerful groups will seek out a different power structure to be dominated by after the original power group collapses. Basically anybody who is used to having decisions made by a higher power who suddenly gains independence to make their own decisions quickly realize that they cannot or are simply not ready to make their own decisions and thus seek out a dominant power to make decisions for them once again.
Far-right media on the internet: culture, discourse and power
Chris Atton In this article Atton discusses the relations of the British National Party or BNP, a far right political party in the UK whose whole platform is based on racism and preserving traditional white British culture, and how discourse is displayed on their “progressive media sites” and how power and hegemony within the BNP influences this discourse. First off the discourse on the site focuses on personal stories from party members on how they have experienced racism from groups that have historically been discriminated against in the UK thus advancing the party’s agenda. The BNP here is trying to draw on the traditional white British population’s connections to a mythical past and to maintain their culture through perceived struggles that the white race is going through, because of the actions of traditionally oppressed groups throughout the country. Yet Atton asserts that these accounts have been skewed and/or exaggerated by the hegemony and power structure of the BNP to conform to the party’s message and garner more support for the movement. Therefore the BNP is wielding its over-arching power by trying to make its message come to life thru an open website that is not a truly open and progressive website. Also it is trying to recreate traditional power structures and hegemony by using the same platforms that were used by oppressed groups to come out of their oppression, thru perceived dying of white culture.
Embedded Ethics: Discourse and Power in the New South Wales Police Service
Ray Gordon
In this paper, author Ray Gordon it taking a look into one of the worlds largest police organizations, in New South Wales. With more than 17,000 employees and serving 7 million people, many of the residents had questions about the corrupt and unethical behavior that surrounded the Service. This prompted the main research question for the paper itself which was, "How do forms of power shape organizational members ethical practices?" To answer this question the Gordon, and his assistants gathered information from people that were in the service themselves. They interviewed different members of the Service, whose roles were spread across the board for over 2 years. These interviews were somewhere between 10 minutes to 3 hours and were conducted both on the job and off. The findings of these interviews showed that ethics can be made while in power relations, and in those members discourses. Also, they found that ethics can be changed through organizational practices, and that ethics imply power just as much a power implies ethics.
Constituting Identities That Challenge the Contemporary Discourse: Power, Discourse, Experience and Emotion
Wayne Melville
This article by Wayne Melville is about 3 different teachers who are challenging the traditional way of teaching science, which has not changed much in the past century and is struggling to keep students engaged. Over the course of their careers these teachers have started to challenge the traditional discourse, and they have gathered data about this to analyze using the Foucauldian perspective. The Foucauldian perspective views power is seen as a strategy and teachers have that power. Using this perspective the author came to 3 different conclusions. The first of the 3 being that there is a need for the development of a teaching environment that immerses teachers in communication with the class and also actively supports classroom practices that challenge the contemporary discourse. The second conclusion is that there is "the potential power of the mandated curriculum to legitimize, for teachers, discourses that challenge the contemporary discourse." And finally the third is that some individual teachers lack the power that is needed to establish discourse environments that fully reach their potential influence within the "infrastructure of pedagogical science."
Foucault’s theory of power and discourse is highly important but he cannot be identified with just post-modernism as his thoughts were highly complex. Foucault’s final book before passing, the History of Sexuality challenged twentieth century sexual liberationists theories which made him an interest for feminists. One of the large focuses of liberal feminism groups is the focus on men and women equality. Some feminists critiqued Foucault for neglecting gender, women’s issues, feminism, and sexual specificity. This is because without Foucault recognizing the power and growth of the women’s movement he is criticized about being “gender blind” (Margaret A. Mclaren). “Even in his (Foucault) discussion of bodies he does not make distinctions between male and female bodies or between feminine and masculine disciplinary practices. (McLaren) ” She further explains that he is accused of androcentric tendencies as he focuses on the male subject. Although some feminists groups critique Foucault for his failure to specialize his critiques towards women others say that Foucault’s work provides a complex and important resource for feminists as well.
Most famously the critique of Foucault’s work is from his friend Jurgen Habermas known as the Foucault and Habermas Debate that centered around the idea of communicative rationality and discourse ethics. Habermas, a sociologist and philosopher criticized Foucault’s theory of power as he claims it as over generalizing, reductionistic and as crypto normative. Habermas believed that rational was innate within humans and that Foucault believed that rational would be socially constructed. Habermas’s idealistic approach understands democratic process that is predetermined but lacks what Foucault presents which is the understanding the dynamics of power and how it is used as a growing socially constructed development over time. (Flyvjberg) The two were planning to hold a live debate in the United States until Foucault’s death which later prompted Habermas to altercate his statements under the base that Foucault would not have the opportunity to refute.
Foucault’s theories on discourse and power have drawn criticism from numerous contemporaries. Another criticism comes from Foucault’s theories about truth and human nature as something that is socially constructed through power struggles and often by a dominant group in power. This assertion that discourse and truth are socially constructed is challenged by philosopher and political scientist Noam Chomsky in a televised debate in 1971. Chomsky believes there are certain instincts and behaviors that characterize an innate human nature. One of the examples Chomsky uses in the debate is the instinct for a child to learn a language, and recognize that language as a “human language.” (Chomsky and Foucault, 1971). In other words, there are certain innate aspects of various discourses. Foucault contradicts the assertion of an innate human nature, and argues that there is nothing innate within the biology of humans that gives us a predetermined knowledge of what it means to be human, and that all forms of human nature are socially constructed from birth. He believed that “in the history of knowledge the notion of human nature seems to me mainly to have played the role of an epistemological indicator to designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history. I would find it difficult to see in this a scientific concept.” (Chomsky and Foucault, 1971). Chomsky rebuts by saying that the human cognitive structure in itself is a biological constant within all humans, and therefore gives all humans an innate foundation to use their cognitive capabilities.
In their debate, they also touch on the concepts of morality and justice. Foucault believes that there is no innate sense of morality, and that humans’ concept of morality has been socially constructed throughout different places and time periods. Chomsky, however believes there is an innate ability within humans to distinguish right from wrong. Foucault believes power is central to how humans construct their realities and that there are constant power struggles going on within particular discourses. Foucault uses the example of the proletariat waging war against the bourgeoisie. Chomsky argues that the proletariat wages war because they feel it is just, whereas Foucault argues that they wage war simply to gain power. Foucault argues that in this example, power struggle and class oppression is central to how our concept of justice is constructed, and he goes on to say that the concept of justice associated with overthrowing the bourgeoisie would not exist in a classless society (Chomsky and Foucault, 1971). Chomsky agrees but stresses the point that all humans possess some sense of justice and morality, which Foucault rejects.