Foucault's "Discourse"
[i]Foucault explores the many “discourse-formations” that structure our negotiation of knowledge and power in a given society at a given time. Each discourse has its own specific history of emergence and entails a certain set of rules that govern what objects may be spoken of within the discourse, what rituals should accompany use of the discourse and which subjects have the right to speak within the discourse.
... “Discourse” may well have originally meant simply conversation or speech but Foucault argues that any speech is in fact shot through with various assumptions, rules, and principles of exclusion: “In appearance,” he explains, “speech may well be of little account, but the prohibitions surrounding it soon reveal its links with desire and power.” For Foucault, then, discourse is “a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we impose upon them.”[/i]
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Theory-Concepts-Routledge-Guides/dp/0415695651/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=key+concepts+critical+theory&qid=1582730475&sr=8-1
My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Michel-Foucault-Beyond-Structuralism-Hermeneutics/dp/0710806558/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Michel+Foucault%3A+Beyond+Structuralism+and+Hermeneutics%2C&qid=1582734931&sr=8-1
What if dialogue works in ways that are not representational? What if dialogue is, rather, to be understood as both representation and discourse? In this article, the author argues that dialogue must be understood in both ways. As such, dialogue may be a representational benefit, but it is also a discursive danger.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021512004141
Is any of this falsifiable? Any attempts to disagree with this would be illegitimate, since people are all simply born into existing discourses of power and privilege. If it is un-falsifiable, can any of it really be proven? And if we "always have something to do", does it not become imperative to control all aspects of discourse, everywhere? In which case how can we avoid legitimizing our own particular use of "violence"? If discourse is violence would it not be better to remain silent?
... “Discourse” may well have originally meant simply conversation or speech but Foucault argues that any speech is in fact shot through with various assumptions, rules, and principles of exclusion: “In appearance,” he explains, “speech may well be of little account, but the prohibitions surrounding it soon reveal its links with desire and power.” For Foucault, then, discourse is “a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we impose upon them.”[/i]
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Theory-Concepts-Routledge-Guides/dp/0415695651/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=key+concepts+critical+theory&qid=1582730475&sr=8-1
My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Michel-Foucault-Beyond-Structuralism-Hermeneutics/dp/0710806558/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Michel+Foucault%3A+Beyond+Structuralism+and+Hermeneutics%2C&qid=1582734931&sr=8-1
What if dialogue works in ways that are not representational? What if dialogue is, rather, to be understood as both representation and discourse? In this article, the author argues that dialogue must be understood in both ways. As such, dialogue may be a representational benefit, but it is also a discursive danger.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021512004141
Is any of this falsifiable? Any attempts to disagree with this would be illegitimate, since people are all simply born into existing discourses of power and privilege. If it is un-falsifiable, can any of it really be proven? And if we "always have something to do", does it not become imperative to control all aspects of discourse, everywhere? In which case how can we avoid legitimizing our own particular use of "violence"? If discourse is violence would it not be better to remain silent?
Comments (2)
Quoting PuerAzaelis
The implicit connection of our discourse to power should not be simply interpreted as "violence". After all, it is impossible to control all aspects of discourse or
to stay completely silent. Foucault's own choice was an attempt to extend, broaden, or saturate specific effects and social presuppositions within a given field while trying to downplay or limit others.
According to Foucault:
Power is strength over someone.
Not all power is violence. We must distinguish power from domination which institutionalizes power and leads it to violence.
Discourse is not the only form of power. Every social structure implies power. Therefore, there is no point in keeping quiet.
Every human relationship implies power. The absence of power is a utopia. What we have to do is oppose counter-power to the power of domination.
Note that for Foucault power is not bad in itself : it can be creative and a form of rebellion against domination.
I doubt that it's a falsifiable theory. After all, it's philosophy.