Discourse
From Geography
JensLubben (Talk | contribs) |
IrisVanDiest (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The term ''discourse'' has become one of the key terms in the vocabulary of the humanities and the social sciences. For within the human sciences this term is becoming embarrassingly overloaded and more likely to induce confusion than any clarity it might originally have been set to produce (Cousins and Hussian, 2010). The most common explaination of the term discourse is that it is a temporal perpective or an important subject of debate and talks for a while. The definition of the word discourse concerning the oxford dictionary is: ''written or spoken communication or debate''. | The term ''discourse'' has become one of the key terms in the vocabulary of the humanities and the social sciences. For within the human sciences this term is becoming embarrassingly overloaded and more likely to induce confusion than any clarity it might originally have been set to produce (Cousins and Hussian, 2010). The most common explaination of the term discourse is that it is a temporal perpective or an important subject of debate and talks for a while. The definition of the word discourse concerning the oxford dictionary is: ''written or spoken communication or debate''. | ||
| - | == Example: | + | Many people think discourse is not as 'free' as one might expect: the society you are in determines a lot about your discourse. About what you should say or even about what you are prohibeted to say. "I am supposing that in every society the production of discourse |
| + | is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality." - Foucault | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Example: How emerges a discourse? == | ||
“The rise in the water level is a material fact. But as soon as people try to ascribe meaning to it, it is no longer outside discourse. Most would place it in the category of ‘natural phenomena’, but they would not necessarily describe it in the same way. Some would draw on a meteorological discourse, attributing the rise in the water level to an unusually heavy downpour. Others see it as one of the many global consequences of the ‘greenhouse effect’. Some might see it as a manifestation of God’s will, attributing it to God’s anger over a people’s sinful way of life or seeing it as a sign of the arrival of Armageddon”(Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 9). | “The rise in the water level is a material fact. But as soon as people try to ascribe meaning to it, it is no longer outside discourse. Most would place it in the category of ‘natural phenomena’, but they would not necessarily describe it in the same way. Some would draw on a meteorological discourse, attributing the rise in the water level to an unusually heavy downpour. Others see it as one of the many global consequences of the ‘greenhouse effect’. Some might see it as a manifestation of God’s will, attributing it to God’s anger over a people’s sinful way of life or seeing it as a sign of the arrival of Armageddon”(Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 9). | ||
| Line 18: | Line 21: | ||
Foucault, M. (1961) ''Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique.'' Found on 16-10-2010 at http://www.fss.uu.nl/wetfil/96-97/foucault.htm | Foucault, M. (1961) ''Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique.'' Found on 16-10-2010 at http://www.fss.uu.nl/wetfil/96-97/foucault.htm | ||
| + | |||
| + | Foucault, M. (1971). "Orders of discourse." Social Science Information, 10: 7. | ||
Jørgensen, M.W. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis: as theory and method. Sage, London | Jørgensen, M.W. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis: as theory and method. Sage, London | ||
| Line 29: | Line 34: | ||
Page enhances bij [[User:JensLubben|JensLubben]] 17:57, 16 December 2011 (CET) | Page enhances bij [[User:JensLubben|JensLubben]] 17:57, 16 December 2011 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Page edited by [[User:IrisVanDiest|IrisVanDiest]] --[[User:IrisVanDiest|IrisVanDiest]] 16:24, 21 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 21 October 2012
The term discourse has become one of the key terms in the vocabulary of the humanities and the social sciences. For within the human sciences this term is becoming embarrassingly overloaded and more likely to induce confusion than any clarity it might originally have been set to produce (Cousins and Hussian, 2010). The most common explaination of the term discourse is that it is a temporal perpective or an important subject of debate and talks for a while. The definition of the word discourse concerning the oxford dictionary is: written or spoken communication or debate.
Many people think discourse is not as 'free' as one might expect: the society you are in determines a lot about your discourse. About what you should say or even about what you are prohibeted to say. "I am supposing that in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality." - Foucault
Example: How emerges a discourse?
“The rise in the water level is a material fact. But as soon as people try to ascribe meaning to it, it is no longer outside discourse. Most would place it in the category of ‘natural phenomena’, but they would not necessarily describe it in the same way. Some would draw on a meteorological discourse, attributing the rise in the water level to an unusually heavy downpour. Others see it as one of the many global consequences of the ‘greenhouse effect’. Some might see it as a manifestation of God’s will, attributing it to God’s anger over a people’s sinful way of life or seeing it as a sign of the arrival of Armageddon”(Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 9). Thus discourse emerge if someone ascribe meaning, talks and debate over a certain subject.
Foucault's discourse
Michel Foucault, as a so-called anti-foundationalist (anti-foundationalism), does not believe that there is some fundamental belief or principle which is the basic ground or foundation of inquiry and knowledge (Rorty, 1979). Thus, knowledge is an inherent social construct, which implies that we as human beings actually create discourses regarding e.g. societal issues. Concerning to Foucault a discourse is a combination of reasoning whereby a subject is put in a certain perspective. A discourse is formed by the written and spoken text about a subject and has a lot of power in marking what is normal and what isn't. The 'powers' that hold discourses on their place are called exclusion mechanisms. (Foucault, 1961)
References:
Cousins, M. & A. Hussian (2010) Foucault and Discourse. found on 17-10-2010 at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/discours.htm
Foucault, M. (1961) Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique. Found on 16-10-2010 at http://www.fss.uu.nl/wetfil/96-97/foucault.htm
Foucault, M. (1971). "Orders of discourse." Social Science Information, 10: 7.
Jørgensen, M.W. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis: as theory and method. Sage, London
Oxford dictionaries. Found on 16-10-2010 at www.oxforddictionaries.com
Rorty, R. (1979) Philosophy and the mirrow of nature. Priceton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Published by Lorenzo Goudsmits (08279910) & Lisanne Dols (0822701)
Page enhances bij JensLubben 17:57, 16 December 2011 (CET)
Page edited by IrisVanDiest --IrisVanDiest 16:24, 21 October 2012 (CEST)
