🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Harvey: I wanted to spare hotline subscribers this response since many pro
bably don't care to know about discourse analysis but I was unable to E-Mail yo
u directly and I can't figure out your full address.  Since you specified "post
structuralist" discourse analysis I'll stick to this (be aware there is an angl
o-american tradition which is very different and originates in socio-linguistic
s and anthropology the Brits are working a synthesis).  Poststructuralist disco
urse analysis has two roots--one in Althusser/Saussure and the other in Foucaul
t.  Diane Macdonell has written a book (I'd give it a "B"): Theories of Discour
se: An Introduction.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd., 1986.  She discusses Fouca
ult and critiques him from a post-Althusserean position (she likes Pecheux or a
t least that is what I think I remember).  You might find a thumbnail descripti
on in her book.  Another source is John B. Thompson, Studies in the Theory of I
deology, Berkeley: UCPress, 1984 (an "A" book).  But he doesn't talk about Fouc
ault--who is a primary player in terms of poststructuralist notions of discours
e.  The best short book on Foucault is Gilles Deleuze, Foucault, Minneapolis: U
of Minn. Press, 1986 (but this would be hard going for a beginner).  Barry Smar
t has written a book about Foucault, but I seem to remember it lacks clarity wh
en he talks about how discourse informs institutional practices.  Actually thou
gh, Smart might work for a short definition in terms of Foucault, see the edito
r's introduction by Peter Hamilton, in Barry Smart, Michel Foucault, Tavistock,
 New York, 1985.  Of course, the best place to start might be with Foucault
himself, although for the life of me I can't see how you can do this immediatel
y in the time frame you imply: anyway, I highly recommend volume one of his his
tory of sexuality and also the Archaeology of Knowledge if you are interested i
n a method for actually doing an analysis.  Finally,  Ernesto Laclau and Chanta
l Mouffe have developed a notion of discourse analysis which draws more on deco
nstruction and a poststructuralist notion of hegemony.  So far, their approach
has produced few empirical studies (I'm working on one).  They are the new kids
 on the block vs. Foucault, and are not very accessible to anyone who isn't
steeped in the debates on the left since 1968.  However, I think they have a lo
t to offer if critics get ahold of what they are doing and show how it can work
.  I think one advantage they have over Foucault is a better sense of the way t
hat social identities are formed through antagonistic relations--a better theor
ization of resistance and especially opposition.  However this remains to be se
en.
What your sister will find I think, is that poststructuralist theories of disco
urse are primarily concerned with the construction of subjectivity.  A gross ge
neralization would be that Foucault sees subjectivity constituted through pract
ices of "individualization" located in social institutions which see these prac
tices as producing "knowledge" or "truth."  Foucault sees the knowledge as bein
g constructed in ways which implement power relations, i.e., individuals are 's
ubjugated' to institutions through individualization--identity formation.  Popu
lations are subjugated through other practices of modern social science.  Lacla
u and Mouffe see identity formation as the effect of discourse--actually the co
nflict of antagonistic discourses.  The French don't define their terms very we
ll, so the notion of what they mean by "identity" or "subjectivity" always seem
s nebulous.  But in general I think it works to think of identity as a person's
 conception of the (symbolic--discursive) relationships among problems, persons
, interests and actions which is experienced as behaviorally directive (I was r
eading Farrell's definition of social knowledge and decided he was really talki
ng about identity or at least I could amend his definition in this direction).
Oh, one last thought, Paul Bove has a chapter on discourse in Frank Lentricchia
and Thomas McLaughlin, eds., Critical Terms for Literary Study which discusses
Foucault.  Hope this is a help.