17 Foucault’s Discourse Analysis
Willem Noordink
The work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984) has exerted a profound influence across various disciplines for over half a century. Although Foucault is primarily described as a philosopher, a significant concern with society and social activism is evident throughout nearly all of his writings. He was renowned for his political activism during the 1970s and 1980s and his analyses within political philosophy, particularly through concepts such as disciplinary society, episteme, and discourse. He is often situated within the domains of continental philosophy, structuralism, and poststructuralism, although he did not identify himself with these labels.
With respect to the central theme of this series of articles—climate change—Foucault’s work offers considerable relevance in several respects. In a preceding article by S. Berends, the issue of climate change was primarily examined through the lens of Foucault’s concepts of ‘power’ and ‘governmentality’. This article, by contrast, focuses on Foucault’s notions of discourse, discourse analysis, and the debates surrounding climate change.
The article begins with an analysis of key terms—specifically structuralism, discourse analysis, epistemes, and their relationship to Foucault’s concept of power. The second section explores how these concepts can be applied to the climate change debate/discourse. In particular, while the concept of discourse analysis may seem abstract, it is also highly applicable in concrete terms. This article examines the nature of discourse analysis and offers a framework for its application to the ongoing debate on climate change.
Structuralism, episteme & discourse
While Foucault himself was often hesitant to be labeled a structuralist, his work is inextricably linked to structuralist thought, particularly in his early writings. Structuralism posits that human culture can be understood through underlying structures, particularly linguistic and social structures, that shape human behavior and thought. In Foucault’s analysis, the structures of knowledge—what he terms “epistemes“—serve as frameworks that define the possibilities of discourse within specific historical contexts.
Foucault’s early work, particularly The Order of Things (1966), examines how different historical periods have distinct epistemic frameworks that govern knowledge production. He argues that these frameworks are not merely passive reflections of reality but active forces that shape perceptions, values, and social practices. The shift from Renaissance to Classical thought, for example, marked a transformation in how knowledge was categorized and understood, leading to new forms of knowledge and power relations.
Foucault’s concept of discourse is central to his critique of power, knowledge and episteme. Discourse, in Foucault’s terms, refers to the ways in which knowledge and language shape social realities (or epistemes). He diverges from traditional understandings of discourse as merely a means of communication; instead, he emphasizes its role in constructing social norms and hierarchies.
In Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault explores how discourses surrounding crime, punishment, and social order create categories of knowledge that define acceptable behavior. He introduces the concept of the “disciplinary gaze,” whereby individuals are subject to constant surveillance and normalization through discourses of power. This disciplinary mechanism illustrates how knowledge operates as a form of power that regulates behavior and shapes identity.
Foucault’s analysis extends to various domains, including sexuality, medicine, and education, where he examines how discourses establish what is considered normal or deviant. The power embedded in these discourses does not only repress; it also produces subjects who internalize these norms, thus perpetuating systems of control.
Power & discourse
As already seen, central to Foucault’s thought is his distinctive understanding of power. Contrary to traditional views that perceive power as a top-down mechanism exercised by sovereign authorities, Foucault presents power as diffuse and pervasive, embedded within social relations and discourses. In his view, power is not merely repressive but also productive; it creates knowledge, identities, and social norms.
In The History of Sexuality (1976), Foucault argues that power operates through discourse, shaping individual subjectivities and societal norms surrounding sexuality. He introduces the notion of “bio-power,” a form of power that regulates populations through institutions, norms, and discourses related to health, sexuality, and reproduction. This concept underscores the intersection of power and knowledge, highlighting how governing bodies utilize knowledge to manage and control populations.
Foucault’s analysis of power challenges the binary opposition of oppressor and oppressed, suggesting that individuals are both subjects and agents within power relations. This notion of “power/knowledge” reflects his view that knowledge is never neutral; it is always entangled with power dynamics that shape its production and dissemination.
The interrelationship between structuralism, discourse analysis, and power in Foucault’s work underscores his critique of modernity. Structuralism provides a framework for understanding the epistemic structures that govern knowledge production, while discourse analysis reveals how these structures manifest in social practices and norms. Power, as Foucault conceptualizes it, is both a product and a producer of these discourses.
Discourse Analysis
Contemporary discourse analysis extends far beyond Foucault’s conceptual examination of the operation and origins of discourses. It has become an approach within the social sciences and the humanities that focuses on the study of language use and communication as constructive elements of knowledge, power, and social reality. Discourse analysis investigates how language and other symbolic systems shape the ways in which the world is understood, organized, and experienced, and how these discursive practices are connected to broader social, political, and cultural structures.
A significant and enduring influence of Foucault on discourse analysis is his broadening of the term “discourse” to encompass not only spoken or written text but also the wider forms of communication, actions, and practices that produce meaning. The goal of discourse analysis is to uncover the underlying rules, structures, and power dynamics that determine what is regarded as true, normal, or legitimate within a given society or culture.
A key aspect of Foucault’s influence on contemporary discourse analysis is his focus on the invisible and subtle forms of power, which often do not manifest in explicit legislation or direct coercion, but instead through subtle discursive practices that create norms and values. Rather than concentrating solely on who wields power, Foucault was particularly concerned with how power is diffused through and within discourse, and how individuals unconsciously contribute to the reproduction of power structures through the language they use.
Foucault also introduced the concept of “discursive formations,” in which he analyzed the various ways knowledge is organized and presented within specific historical contexts. His work emphasized that discourses themselves are subject to change over time, with new forms of knowledge replacing old ones, while simultaneously maintaining continuities of power and control.
Below is an example of what a step-by-step plan for discourse analysis might look like.
Application of Concepts to the Climate Change Debate
A debate differs from a discourse. A debate is a (sometimes organized) exchange of arguments between two or more opposing parties, aimed at defending or refuting particular positions. It has a formal structure and is often directed towards persuading an audience or reaching a specific conclusion. Debates are typically temporary and contextual, with the power dynamics between participants being overtly visible in their interactions.
In contrast, as we have seen, a discourse refers to broader, more enduring systems of meaning-making that influence the ways in which we understand and organize the world. It is not confined to formal discussion but encompasses an ongoing process of knowledge production and social norm formation. Discourses are often linked to power structures and can unconsciously reproduce beliefs and norms, exerting deeper and more lasting influences on social and cultural practices.
For this reason, discourse analysis offers a novel perspective on how to approach different forms of climate debate. Discourse analysis provides a valuable framework for understanding the climate debate and unraveling the complex interactions between science, politics, economics, and culture. By examining the language and narratives employed, we can gain a clearer understanding of how public perceptions and policy decisions are shaped. This insight is crucial for developing effective communication and policy strategies that can adequately address the urgency of the climate crisis and mobilize a broad audience for change.
There are various debates and discourses surrounding climate change, each with its own perspectives, interests, and implications. The main discourses are briefly outlined below:
| Scientific Discourse | This discourse is grounded in empirical data and research findings. Scientists emphasize global warming, the role of greenhouse gases, and the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, economies, and human health. This discourse advocates for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. |
| Economic Discourse | The economic discourse focuses on the financial implications of climate change and the policies required to address it. This includes discussions about the costs of climate action versus the costs of inaction, investments in green technologies, and the impact on employment. There is often a tension between economic growth and sustainability, with some stakeholders advocating for a focus on economic benefits rather than environmentally friendly policies. |
| Political Discourse | Political discourses on climate change range from urgent calls for action to denial of the issue. Politicians and policymakers use language to legitimize their positions, which can lead to polarized viewpoints. Some political parties emphasize the necessity of international cooperation, while others prioritize national interests and economic growth. |
| Social and Cultural Discourse | This discourse encompasses the broader societal values and beliefs that influence how individuals understand climate change. Movements such as Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion highlight climate change as a social justice issue, mobilizing youth and communities for action. This discourse often advocates for systemic change and emphasizes the responsibilities of both individuals and institutions. |
| Technological Discourse | This discourse focuses on technological solutions to climate change, such as renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, and sustainable agriculture. Proponents of this discourse believe that technological innovation is key to solving the climate crisis, while critics warn that an excessive emphasis on technology may lead to procrastination and neglect of necessary behavioral changes. |
Philosophical exercise
The climate debate also involves an important aspect that we have not yet discussed: the denial of climate issues. The refusal to acknowledge the climate problem is difficult to reconcile with the aforementioned discourses on climate debate. What do you think: does denial have its own discourse, or does it exist within all discourses?
And now concrete: a denial discourse?
The concept of the denial discourse can refer to the ways in which knowledge and truth about climate change are undermined or contested. This discourse is not merely a matter of individual denial but reflects broader power structures and ideological interests that shape and perpetuate the rejection of climate science. The denial discourse operates as part of a wider network of social, political, and economic forces that influence public understanding and decision-making regarding climate change.
Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis highlights how knowledge is not simply a neutral or objective representation of reality but is instead embedded in and shaped by power relations. Knowledge about climate change is produced within a specific historical and social context, influenced by institutions, political agendas, and the interests of powerful groups. In this context, climate change denial is not an isolated phenomenon but rather an active part of a larger discourse that works to challenge or distort accepted scientific knowledge.
Philosophical exercise
Below are 5 characteristics of climate denial discourse. Choose one and investigate whether you too could arrive at this characteristic based on discourse analysis (as presented in the step-by-step plan).
The Construction of Alternative Truths
The denial discourse often seeks to create and promote alternative narratives about climate change, framing it as uncertain, exaggerated, or even fabricated. This involves challenging the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community regarding the causes and consequences of climate change. Denial rhetoric frequently relies on the argument that climate science is incomplete, flawed, or politically motivated. By presenting climate change as a contentious or unresolved issue, denial discourses attempt to create the impression that there is still significant debate within the scientific community, even when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the reality of human-driven climate change.
New Dynamics of Power
Denial discourses are not just propagated through overt media campaigns or political speeches. They are also embedded in social norms and everyday practices. The widespread acceptance of climate change denial, even among individuals or groups with limited exposure to scientific data, can be understood as the result of subtle power dynamics at play within society. Foucault’s ideas about the invisible forms of power are relevant here: denial operates through the normalization of certain beliefs and practices that sustain unsustainable consumption patterns and environmental degradation.
In this sense, climate change denial can be seen as part of a broader cultural and societal narrative that privileges short-term economic gain over long-term ecological sustainability. It is a form of bio-power in which dominant groups shape public understanding of environmental issues in ways that serve their interests, often by framing climate change as a distant or hypothetical problem, rather than an immediate and urgent crisis.
Discursive Struggles
Denial discourses often engage in a form of discursive struggle with the dominant climate change narrative. This involves contesting the very frameworks within which climate change is understood and discussed. Denial may take the form of challenging the legitimacy of climate science itself, questioning the motives of climate scientists, or invoking conspiracy theories to discredit climate change as a scientifically-validated phenomenon.
Foucault’s notion of regimes of truth is relevant here, as it highlights how particular truths are institutionalized and accepted within society. Climate change denial can be viewed as an attempt to create alternative regimes of truth, where environmental degradation is downplayed or denied altogether, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This struggle over what constitutes truth is an example of how power is exercised through discourse, as the denial discourse works to shape what people believe is true or possible regarding climate change.
The Role of Media
The role of media in the dissemination and reinforcement of denial discourses cannot be overlooked. Media outlets, particularly those with political or economic affiliations, often play a crucial role in spreading denial rhetoric, shaping public perceptions, and legitimizing the voices of climate change skeptics. The strategic framing of climate change as a “debate” or a “controversy” in the media can contribute to the normalization of denial and create a false equivalence between established science and alternative, unsupported viewpoints.
Foucault’s concept of dispositif—a network of institutions, practices, and knowledge that work together to regulate society—can be applied here to understand how denial discourses are sustained through media, political discourse, and public debate. The media acts as a powerful agent in this dispositif, influencing how climate change is framed and how policies related to it are discussed in the public sphere.
Reinforcement of Ideology
Denial discourses often align with particular ideological or economic interests that benefit from the continued exploitation of fossil fuels or other environmentally-harmful practices. For example, industries such as oil, gas, and coal may fund or promote climate change denial in order to protect their economic interests and avoid regulatory measures. In these cases, denial is not simply an intellectual stance but a strategic move to preserve the status quo and resist the transformative changes required to address the climate crisis.
Foucault’s concept of governmentality helps explain how denial discourses are tied to broader systems of governance and power. Climate change denial may be employed by political actors or corporations to maintain control over economic and environmental policies, often by casting doubt on the need for urgent action or the feasibility of significant regulatory changes. Denial serves to delay or prevent the implementation of policies that could challenge entrenched power structures.
Summary
Foucault’s concept of discourse refers to systems of knowledge, language, and practices that shape how we understand and organize the world. For Foucault, discourse is not just spoken or written text; it encompasses broader social and cultural practices that create norms and truths. Discourse is closely tied to power, which is not only repressive but also productive, as it shapes identities and regulates behavior.
Building on Foucault, discourse analysis is a method for examining how knowledge is produced, which truths are accepted, and how power operates through language and social practices. It focuses on the underlying power dynamics and historical contexts that determine what is considered truth.
In the climate change debate, discourse analysis is valuable for understanding how various narratives about climate change, science, and policy are constructed. Scientific, political, economic, and social discourses each have their own interests and implications. Discourse analysis reveals how knowledge about climate change is formed, contested, and used to influence public perceptions and policy decisions, while also showing how denial discourses undermine the scientific consensus.
Read further
If you want to know more about Michel Foucault, a good place to start would be to read the entry about him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- Gutting, Gary, and Johanna Oksala. “Michel Foucault.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified September 1, 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/.
If you want to know more about his concept of climate denial and philosophy:
- Petersen, Brian, Diana Stuart, and Ryan Gunderson. “Reconceptualizing climate change denial.” Human ecology review 25.2 (2019): 117-142.
- DeLay, Tad. Future of Denial: The Ideologies of Climate Change. Verso Books, 2024.
If you want to read about the structure of discourse analysis:
- Brown, Gillian. “Discourse analysis.” Cambridge: Cambridge UP(1983).
- Paltridge, Brian. Discourse analysis. Springer International Publishing, 2021.
Other media:
A link to a short lecture on Discourse Analysis by “Grad Coach”:
A (Dutch) discourse analysis on climate denial:
Feedback/Errata
2 Responses to Foucault’s Discourse Analysis