Introduction: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
“The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault was first published in 1971 as “L’Ordre du discours” and later translated into English and included in various collections. This inaugural lecture at the Collège de France is a seminal text in post-structuralist thought and has significantly influenced literary theory and criticism. Foucault’s exploration of the complex relationship between power and knowledge, and how discourses shape and control what can be said and thought, has been instrumental in analyzing the social and political implications of language and literature. “The Order of Discourse” challenges traditional notions of authorship, originality, and meaning, and has inspired new approaches to understanding literary texts as products of their historical and cultural context.
Summary of “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
- Context and Ritual Acknowledgment: Foucault begins his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France by acknowledging his predecessor and mentor, Jean Hyppolite, indicating the ritualistic nature of such addresses which pay homage to past intellectuals. This acknowledgment serves as a starting point for his philosophical exploration, and a platform from which he questions the established norms, particularly his divergence from Hegel. He states, “Ritualistically, Foucault’s address pays homage to Jean Hyppolite, whose death made this position available and who was Foucault’s teacher at Lycée Henri IV and later his thesis supervisor.” This ceremonial gesture sets the stage for his critique of traditional discourse and its underlying power dynamics.
- The Desire to Avoid Beginnings: In discussing his approach to discourse, Foucault reveals a preference for continuity over initiation, wishing to blend into an ongoing conversation rather than starting anew. This desire reflects a deeper discomfort with the conventional structures that frame scholarly discourse, emphasizing the constraints and expectations placed upon it by societal institutions. He articulates this sentiment by expressing a wish to have been preceded by a voice, to simply continue a conversation rather than commence it: “Instead of beginning to speak [prendre la parole], I would have preferred that speech itself surround me and whisk me off far beyond any possible beginning.” This statement underscores his critique of the formalities that govern academic and intellectual exchanges.
- Discourse as a Controlled Entity: Foucault proposes that discourse within any society is heavily regulated through various mechanisms that serve to mitigate its inherent dangers and to harness its power. He identifies specific procedures such as exclusion, prohibition, and the division of true and false, which systematically control the production and flow of discourse. He hypothesizes, “I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures, whose role is to conjure away its power and its dangers, to master its chance events, to evade its heavy, formidable materiality.” This perspective highlights the intersection of knowledge, power, and societal norms in shaping the boundaries of what can be said or thought.
- Prohibition and the Power of Discourse: Exploring the intersections of discourse with power and desire, Foucault delves into the societal and institutional prohibitions that shape the discourse landscape. He notes the taboo nature of certain topics and the selective permissions granted to speakers, stating, “We all know, of course, that not everything can be said, that you cannot bring up every subject in every context, and finally, that not just anyone can talk about absolutely anything.” This observation points to the selective and often restrictive nature of discourse, governed by unseen but powerful societal rules.
- The Role of Madness in Discourse: Foucault reflects on the historical treatment of madness within discourse, where the mad were often silenced or paradoxically heralded as bearers of hidden truths. This dualistic treatment reflects broader societal mechanisms of control and exclusion. He illustrates this point by describing how, historically, “the madman has been the person whose discourse cannot circulate like that of others: his word was considered null and void, unable to authenticate an act or a contract…” This analysis not only highlights the marginalization of certain voices but also critiques the arbitrary lines drawn by societal norms around rationality and madness.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
| Literary Terms/Concepts | Explanation and Examples |
| Discourse | The term “discourse” is central to Foucault’s work. It refers not just to spoken or written communication but to the broader systems of thought, knowledge, and power that shape and are shaped by language. In “The Order of Discourse,” Foucault discusses how discourses are produced, regulated, and controlled within societies. |
| Power/Knowledge | Foucault emphasizes the interconnectedness of power and knowledge. Discourses are not neutral; they are tools of power that define what is considered true, normal, or acceptable. In the text, Foucault discusses how institutions like the medical establishment and the legal system use discourse to exert power and control over individuals. |
| Exclusion | Foucault identifies various mechanisms of exclusion that regulate discourse, such as prohibition, the division between reason and madness, and the will to truth. These mechanisms determine who can speak, what can be said, and what is considered valid knowledge. |
| The Will to Truth | The will to truth is a historical and social construct that shapes our understanding of knowledge and truth. Foucault argues that it functions as a system of exclusion by marginalizing or dismissing forms of knowledge that do not conform to its standards. |
| Discipline | Disciplines are systems of knowledge with their own rules, methods, and objects of study. They function as regulatory mechanisms for discourse by defining what is considered valid knowledge within a particular field. |
| Subjectification | Subjectification is the process by which individuals are made into subjects through discourse. It involves internalizing the norms and values of a particular discourse, which shapes one’s identity and behavior. |
| Event | Foucault emphasizes the importance of the event in discourse analysis. He argues that discourses should be seen as series of events rather than as expressions of underlying meanings or intentions. |
| Genealogy | Genealogy is a method of historical analysis that traces the origins and development of ideas, practices, or institutions. Foucault uses genealogy to understand how discourses have been formed and transformed over time. |
| Archaeology | While not explicitly mentioned in this text, Foucault’s earlier work focused on the concept of archaeology, which is a method of analyzing the underlying structures of knowledge systems in different historical periods. It complements the genealogical approach by examining the historical conditions that make certain discourses possible. |
| Author Function | The author function refers to the role of the author as a principle of discourse. Foucault argues that the author is not simply the individual who writes a text but a construct that is produced by the discourse itself. |
| Commentary | Commentary is a way of regulating discourse by interpreting and expanding upon existing texts. Foucault discusses how commentary can both limit and enable the production of new discourses. |
| Madness | Foucault discusses the historical exclusion of the discourse of madness from the realm of reason. He argues that this division is not natural but rather a product of historical and social forces. |
| Ritual | Rituals are formalized patterns of behavior that often involve speech acts. Foucault mentions rituals as a mechanism for regulating discourse by defining who can speak, what can be said, and in what context. |
| Doctrine | Doctrines are sets of beliefs or principles that are often used to regulate discourse within a particular group or community. Foucault discusses how doctrines can both unite and divide individuals based on their adherence to certain beliefs. |
| Social Appropriation of Discourse | This refers to the ways in which different social groups have access to and control over certain types of discourse. Foucault discusses how education and other institutions play a role in the social appropriation of discourse. |
Contribution of “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault in Literary Theory
- Challenged Traditional Notions of Authorship: Foucault questioned the idea of the author as the sole source of meaning in a text, shifting focus to the broader cultural and historical forces shaping discourse.
- Emphasized the Role of Power in Discourse: He highlighted how power relations influence what can be said, by whom, and in what context, thus impacting literary production and interpretation.
- Introduced the Concept of Discursive Formations: Foucault explored how different discourses (e.g., scientific, medical, legal) shape our understanding of the world and how these interact with literary discourse.
- Promoted Historical and Cultural Contextualization: He argued for analyzing literary works within their specific historical and cultural contexts, rather than as isolated artistic creations.
- Inspired New Critical Approaches: Foucault’s ideas led to the development of new critical approaches like New Historicism and Cultural Studies, which focus on the social, political, and historical dimensions of literature.
- Questioned the Stability of Meaning: He challenged the idea of fixed meanings in texts, suggesting that meanings are fluid and subject to change depending on the context and the reader’s perspective.
- Focused on the Materiality of Discourse: Foucault emphasized the material aspects of language, such as the institutions, practices, and power structures that shape and control discourse, influencing literary production and reception.
Examples of Critiques: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
- Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice:
- Exclusion: Foucault’s concept of exclusion can be applied to analyze how women’s voices and perspectives are marginalized in the novel’s patriarchal society. The limited discourse available to women characters restricts their expression and agency. Foucault’s concept of exclusion can be applied to analyze how women’s voices and perspectives are marginalized in the novel’s patriarchal society. The limited discourse available to women characters restricts their expression and agency.
- Social Appropriation of Discourse: The novel reflects the social hierarchy of Regency England, where discourse and knowledge are controlled by the upper class. The Bennet sisters’ marriage prospects depend on their ability to navigate the social discourse of the elite. The novel reflects the social hierarchy of Regency England, where discourse and knowledge are controlled by the upper class. The Bennet sisters’ marriage prospects depend on their ability to navigate the social discourse of the elite.
- William Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
- The Will to Truth: The play explores the complex relationship between truth and power. Hamlet’s quest for truth about his father’s murder is entangled with questions of political power and legitimacy, highlighting the stakes involved in controlling the “true” narrative. The play explores the complex relationship between truth and power. Hamlet’s quest for truth about his father’s murder is entangled with questions of political power and legitimacy, highlighting the stakes involved in controlling the “true” narrative.
- Discursive Formation: can be analyzed as part of the Renaissance discursive formation, where new ideas about humanism, individuality, and the nature of truth were emerging and challenging traditional authority.Hamlet can be analyzed as part of the Renaissance discursive formation, where new ideas about humanism, individuality, and the nature of truth were emerging and challenging traditional authority.
- Toni Morrison’s Beloved:
- The Division between Reason and Madness: The character of Beloved embodies the marginalized discourse of trauma and memory, which is often dismissed as madness. The novel challenges this binary by giving voice to the silenced experiences of enslaved women. The character of Beloved embodies the marginalized discourse of trauma and memory, which is often dismissed as madness. The novel challenges this binary by giving voice to the silenced experiences of enslaved women.
- Genealogy: A genealogical approach can trace the historical roots of the trauma depicted in the novel, linking the characters’ experiences to the broader history of slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities. A genealogical approach can trace the historical roots of the trauma depicted in the novel, linking the characters’ experiences to the broader history of slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities.
- Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude:
- Discursive Event: The novel’s magical realism can be seen as a series of discursive events that disrupt traditional narrative conventions and challenge Western notions of reality and rationality. The novel’s magical realism can be seen as a series of discursive events that disrupt traditional narrative conventions and challenge Western notions of reality and rationality.
- Author Function: García Márquez’s authorial voice, with its unique blend of historical fact and magical elements, creates a powerful and distinct narrative style that defies easy categorization and interpretation. García Márquez’s authorial voice, with its unique blend of historical fact and magical elements, creates a powerful and distinct narrative style that defies easy categorization and interpretation.
Criticism Against “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
- Overemphasis on Power and Neglect of Agency
- Critics often point out that Foucault’s focus on the ways in which discourse is controlled and regulated tends to overshadow individual agency. His model sometimes appears to leave little room for personal autonomy or resistance, suggesting that individuals are almost wholly shaped by the discursive practices around them. This can be seen as a deterministic view that underestimates the capacity of individuals to act independently of the structures that surround them.
- Lack of Empirical Grounding
- Foucault’s theoretical constructs, while compelling in their philosophical depth, often lack a solid empirical foundation. Critics argue that his claims about the mechanisms controlling discourse are not sufficiently supported by concrete examples or systematic data, which makes his theories difficult to test or verify. This criticism touches on a broader debate in social theory about the balance between theoretical abstraction and empirical research.
- ·Ambiguity and Complexity
- The complexity and sometimes opaque nature of Foucault’s writing can be a barrier to understanding and applying his ideas. His concepts of power, discourse, and knowledge are interwoven in ways that can be challenging to disentangle and apply in a straightforward manner. This ambiguity can make his work more open to misinterpretation and less accessible to those not already familiar with his philosophical framework.
- Neglect of Historical Specificity
- While Foucault emphasizes the historical variability of discourses, some historians and critics argue that he does not adequately account for the specific historical contexts in which discursive changes occur. They suggest that his model of discourse tends to flatten historical differences and overlook the unique ways in which discursive practices are embedded in specific social and historical contexts.
- Ethical Neutrality
- Foucault’s approach to power and discourse is often criticized for its ethical neutrality. He describes the mechanisms of power without explicitly condemning or endorsing them, which some see as a failure to engage with the moral implications of his analysis. This has led to debates about whether Foucault’s work offers any clear basis for critiquing social injustices or advocating for change.
- Underestimation of Ideological Conflicts
- Some critics argue that Foucault underestimates the role of ideological conflict and struggle in shaping discourse. By focusing on how discourse regulates and constrains, he might overlook the ways in which discourse is also a site of conflict and negotiation, where different groups actively struggle to define reality and truth.
- Circularity of Argument
- Foucault’s argument sometimes appears circular: if all knowledge is a product of discursive formations of power, then the very critique Foucault offers is itself a product of these conditions. This raises questions about the standpoint from which Foucault critiques society and whether his analysis can escape the constraints it describes.
Suggested Readings: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Books:
- Blair, Carole, and Neil Michel Foucault. Michel Foucault: Key Concepts. Routledge, 2021.
- Gutting, Gary. Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
- Luxon, Nancy, ed. Archives of Infamy: Foucault on State Power in the Lives of Ordinary Citizens. University of Minnesota Press, 2019.
- Rabinow, Paul, ed. The Foucault Reader. Pantheon Books, 1984.
Academic Articles:
- Davidson, Arnold I. “Archaeology, Genealogy, Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 219-241. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Mills, Sarah. “Discourse.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 63-82. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Sawicki, Jana. “Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 431-458. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Quotations with Explanation from “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “I would have liked it if behind me a voice was saying: ‘I must go on, I cannot go on, I must go on, words must be spoken as long as there are any left, I must speak them until they find me, until they speak me — a strange punishment, a strange offence, I must continue, perhaps it has already taken place, perhaps they have already spoken me.'” | This reflects Foucault’s fascination with the concept of authorship and the autonomous nature of discourse. He suggests that discourse is an ongoing process that exists independently of the speaker, shaping the speaker even as it is spoken. |
| “In a society like ours, we are all well aware, of course, of the procedures for exclusion.” | Foucault highlights how societies regulate discourse through exclusionary practices that define what can be said, by whom, and in which contexts. This governance of discourse reflects broader power structures and controls over knowledge and truth. |
| “I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures, whose role is to conjure away its powers and dangers, to master its chance events, to evade its heavy, formidable, materiality.” | Foucault introduces the central thesis of his lecture, which is that discourse is controlled and delimited through various institutional and societal mechanisms that prevent it from becoming a source of power or a danger to the status quo. |
| “The taboo of the object, the ritual of circumstance, the privileged or exclusive rights of the speaking subject: here we have the play of three types of prohibition, which intersect, reinforce, and compensate for one another, forming a complex grid that endlessly changes itself.” | This quotation explains the complex and multi-layered ways in which discourse is restricted. Foucault identifies three main forms of prohibition: the subjects that cannot be discussed, the contexts in which discussions can occur, and the individuals who are allowed to speak. |
| “Where, then, is the danger? Here is the hypothesis that I would like to advance this evening, so as to pin down the field — or perhaps just the exceedingly provisional theatre — of my work: I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures…” | Foucault theorizes that the “danger” of discourse lies in its potential to challenge and change power structures. He argues that controlling discourse is a means to maintain social order and prevent upheaval. |
| “There is another principle of exclusion that exists in our society: not a prohibition this time, but a division and a rejection. I have in mind the opposition between reason and madness.” | Foucault discusses how societal norms dictate who is rational and who is mad, thereby determining who gets to participate in discourse. This separation not only marginalizes certain individuals and ideas but also reinforces the authority of “rational” discourse. |