Theoretical framework
2.4 Foucauldian and Social Constructionist views of discourse
version of the truth; instead, the social constructionist works to uncover the effects of texts; what they do in terms of limiting opportunities for certain kinds of action and forms of subjectivity, while allowing others.
Furthermore, in its belief that language constructs human reality, and that texts should be treated as a set of linguistic possibilities within which social life comes to be constructed, constructionists have drawn upon Foucault in their understanding of the constraints that are imposed on us by discourse. Language can be used to mean certain things but we are constrained in what we say by the multiplicity of possible meanings made available to us, depending on the particular context in which we find ourselves. The rules limiting what we say and where we say it are subconscious, we are never aware of the multitude of assumptions that come to mind when we speak or hear language. TerreBlanche and Durrheim (1999) state that language is therefore not just a collection of signs which direct one to a certain concept; rather, "it is a system of meanings - more, particularly, a system of differences without any positive terms"(1999: 151). As an example. they mention the word' woman': as a sign it does not have a positive meaning in that it directs one to a definite idea. It has meaning because of its relationship to other signs, other interpretations of the word 'woman', such as 'lady', 'marriage', 'mother' etc. (151).
Foucault describes this aspect of discourse as rarefaction (in Mills, 1992: 70), almost ironically stating that although what we could say is almost infinite, the utterances are repetitive and remain within socially agreed boundaries. We are restricted by societal and personal perceptions of the norm. Foucault refers to "discursive limits", where we are constrained in what we say and do by the bounds of the discourses. He refers,
amongst others, to educational institutions as a form of regulation of discourse, and not as a place where one becomes enlightened. He questions the status of schools as places encouraging original and unrestricted inquiries into knowledge:
What, after all, is an education system, other than a ritualization of speech, a qualification and fixing of roles for speaking subjects, the constitution of a doctrinal group, however diffuse, a distribution and appropriation of discourse with its powers and knowledges?
(Foucault, 1981: 64 in Mills, 1992: 71)
Furthermore, since social constructionism is not about language per se, but about interpreting the social world as a kind of language, it also considers physical arrangements, representations of reality and practices as a system of language or signs, and attempts to analyse the power that signs and images have on people's representations of themselves and of objects. Once more, Foucauldian thought is evident in this aspect of constructionist analysis. He deals with the issue of institutional reinforcement of discourses as part of his argument regarding the effects of power, truth and knowledge on discourses. He believes that buildings and organisation of space are important structures through which power is manifested.
Foucault theorises about the nature of power at great length, and his thoughts have influenced social constructionist discourse analysis in a fundamental way. A characteristic quality of power is that it is able to disperse and circulate through the realms of society rather than being owned by one class or group - social constructionists refer to it as "disciplinary power" (TerreBlanche & Durrheim, 1999: 162), where institutions such as schools continuously observe and record the characters of subjects. This is done through surveillance, and through individuals who
are engaged in acts of "confession", in which they reveal aspects of themselves. In Foucauldian thought, however, people are not simply just victims of power, objects that power oppresses or inhibits. Instead, power is an unstable phenomenon that is constantly negotiated in human interactions, and is productive rather than repressive.
It creates new ways of being for the individual, and new objects of knowledge. He unequivocally states that
The individual is an effect of power, and at the same time, or precisely, to the extent to which it is that effect, it is the element of its articulation. The individual which power has constituted is at the same time its vehicle.
(Foucault, 1980: 98 in Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 1999: 162)
An important point to note is that the acquisition of knowledge is intrinsically bound up with power struggles. Foucault refers to this as power/knowledge (Mills, 1997:
22). All the knowledge that people have acquired is the result of power struggles, for example, the curriculum at schools, where the struggle for power results in a specific version of the truth being taught. We can refer to our own political history as proof of this, where subjects like history were taught according to a specific viewpoint of the Nationalist government. Even Kader Asmal' s current statements regarding Curriculum 2005, and his criticism of the knowledge that he believes is taught in Christian Independent schools, is a reflection of the struggle of a power struggle between the government and the Independent schools, over what knowledge is taught.
Foucault sums up his argument on knowledge by stating that it is often the product of the subjugation of objects, or the process through which subjects are constituted as subjugated.
Agency is another key aspect of Foucauldian thought which is important in my analysis. Since power is not a phenomenon that dominates absolutely, there is always the possibility for change within the power relations. Resistance and power can be regarded as being co-terminous; "Where there is power there is resistance"(Foucault, in Mills, 1997: 42). This opens up possibilities for subjects to resist the discursive practices that constrain them; for example, within the scope of feminism, where language has become the site of struggle, and where sexist practices have been exposed. Thus, if discourses are the practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak, or "the system of statements that construct an object (parker, 1992, in Mills, 1997: 160) one would need to expose these practices, and consider the effects they have. Foucault sums it up as follows:
Discourses are not once and for all subservient to power or raised up against it, any more than silences are. We must make allowances for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power;
it reinforces it, but also undermines it and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.
(Foucault, 1978: 100-101 in: Mills, 1997: 45)
Discourses in social constructionism are often limited by the institutional contexts in which they occur. In this respect, social constructionists refer to the micro-contexts of a dialogue or conversation (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999: 164) where the analyst seeks to investigate the ways in which participants take advantage of the opportunities to speak. Secondly, the text is studied as part of the macro-context of institutions and ideologies, where what is said is constrained or made possible by the institutional or ideological contexts. However, there are occasions when discourses transcend institutional contexts. Discourses in social constructionist terms are further
characterised by their ability to refer to, and contextualise each other. (Terre Blanche
& Durrheim, 1999: 166). Other discourses are often evident in a text, although they may not be very obvious.