Discursive Formation

From Geography

Discursive Formation

Michel Foucault represented the discursive approach. This approach is the opposite of the semiotic approach. The semiotic approach saw language as the representation instead of the discursive approach, which saw discource as the representation. The movement from the semiotic approach to the discursive approach was the movement from the analysis based on 'the domain of signifying structure' to an analysis based on 'relations of force, strategic developments and tactics'. (Hall, 1997)

The meaning of discourse, by Foucault, is the production of knowledge. He quotes: 'Here I believe one's point of references should not be to the great model of language and signs, but to that of war and battle' (Foucault, 1980) Not language, but discourse was been studied as a system of representation. Although the discursive approach is also about language as a way of production of knowledge and language is a link to the practice.

Therefore the representation of the knowledge of a particular object is based on words, sentences and signs, but on views from different authors, in different texes, and so on, rooted in the society and social life. This stands for discourse, which defines and produces the objects of knowledge. (Hall, 1997)

There is a discursive formation when the representation of the knowledge about the same object has a heterogeneous nature, have the same coherence and systematicity, occurs in common institutions and is implicated materially in the conduct of social life. (Johnston, Gregory, Pratt, Watts, 2000)

Sources

• Foucalt, M., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, edited by Colin Gordon ( Harvester, London 1980)

• Hall, S., Cultural Representations And Signifying Practices (Stage, Londen 1997)

• Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. Watts, M., The dictionary of Human Geography ( Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 4th edition 2000)