6 Foucaultian Discourse Analysis

Methods

1. Foucaultian Discourse Analysis (Khan & MacEachen, 2021; Powers, 2013).

Foucaultian Discourse Analysis, from now on also referred to as FDA, is a type of qualitative analysis to be performed on discourse, with a specific focus on the power relations.

Let us first unpack this sentence. Discourse is a broad term used to specify how people talk, write and think about a certain topic. For any subject, such as psychology, there is a realm of discussion about the topic: how people talk in day-to-day life, what is written in newspapers, what appears on television, or what scientific research is published. To understand a discourse, it must also be understood in its proper context. For psychology for example, you can consider “pop”-psychology and scientific psychology. When people talk about psychology in one context, they might talk about self-help books, meditation and practicing mindfulness. When people talk about psychology in a different context, they might talk about statistical methods, scientific theory and diagnostic tools.

To do discourse analysis means focussing on specific instances of a discourse. This can be a news article, television broadcast or conducting interviews with individuals. Qualitative analysis then, is a form of scientific research where these types of data are systemically investigated. The interview or news article is dissected to identify common themes, meaning and importance.

What sets FDA apart, is that it is to a lesser extent interested in very small-scale analysis. Some types of discourse analysis deeply investigate the meaning of specific words and sentences in the discourse. Although this is not neglected in FDA, there is a major focus on power. Power can have a lot of different meanings. The owners of a business have  certain powers, for example to fire or promote people, and the power to regulate behaviour within the work-context.

For FDA, power is a relational aspect between people, institutions and the discourse they are embedded in. Power influences how people relate to themselves, others and the general world, and in this way power can come from many places. History can also have power, if something has been done a certain way for a very long time, and people in society hold great respect for this historical idea, this historical cloud is exercising power, telling people how to live their life and how the world works.

Discourse influences the perception of individuals. The depiction of race and sexuality in film and television influences how people view these things themselves. Through a process called normalization, power can shape norms and dictate acceptable behaviours.

The goal of FDA is to identify power in discourse. To take a news article as an example: Who wrote the article? How are specific societal groups framed in this article? Does one group benefit from this depiction? Who has the power to influence things in this discourse?

2. Applying the method to something specific (Powers, 2013)

There is not one specific way to do Foucaultian Discourse Analysis. There are, however, three key elements to discourse analysis. First, you have the genealogy of a discourse. This is the history or background of the discourse. Second is the structural analysis, this investigates how the discourse currently functions. Third and perhaps most important is the power analysis. With the power analysis, you identify where the power lies or is hidden in the discourse.

Actually performing discourse analysis might seem vague still. To make it more specific, we will select a specific instance of a discourse for this chapter. For example, a television interview. To then do the discourse analysis, we will use the guidelines of Penny Powers, who was inspired by the work of Mark Rawlison. This guide gives practical questions for these three key elements of discourse analysis. The questions provided in this work are specifically tailored to one example, so they should be slightly adjusted or expanded based on the needs of the discourse.

Answering all these questions will bring to light the important elements in relation to the history, structure and power in a discourse. Combining the answers to these questions will allow us to construct a narrative around the discourse. First, to construct the history, explain the crucial historical elements that have contributed to the current shape of discourse. Secondly, consider the current workings of the discourse: how does it currently shape debate and behaviour? And lastly there is the power analysis, which should not just be understood as only bringing in power. The question of power is not just relevant in the third part of the analysis. When looking at the history and current workings, power will already be a relevant point that might need to be discussed at certain points. Rather, in the power analysis, the historical and current workings of the discourse are now explicitly tied to the power relations present.

Having done this task, it is up to the performer of the analysis to interpret these results. What important conclusion can we draw about this discourse based on the analysis we just performed? Performing this research is not only a matter of acquiring and expanding knowledge, rather we must also relate it to the current world in a critical way. 

3. Key authors/works on FDA

Foucault (Foucault, Stanford; 2003)

To understand Foucaultian Discourse Analysis, it is inevitable that we will also have to discuss Michel Foucault  (1926-1984) to whom the method owes its name. Foucault was a French philosopher and historian who had widespread influence not just in philosophy, but across many other scientific disciplines. During his youth, Foucault studied philosophy, psychology and history. By the 1960s, he had become a household name and become active both as a traveling lecturer and a political activist, who supported marginalized groups. His political activism was not without controversy. For Foucault, his political activism and his research where heavily intertwined. As Isin (2015) says, perhaps Foucault could be considered an ”activist intellectual.” He felt that it was his duty, and that perhaps in general it must thus be the people’s duty to confront the government or those in power. What this means for FDA is that it is not going to be a purely analytical tool. As FDA is a tool of both philosophers and social scientists, there is an understanding that what we are analysing are contingent ways the world can be. For example, the way the government is set up, the way certain rules exist, the way we assign value to certain jobs. With the help of FDA, we can uncover where power is hidden in these contingent social structures, and we can thus learn more about the world perhaps.

In his youth, he was inspired by a variety of French philosophers and writers, and also some big names such as Hegel, Marx and Heidegger. His works covered a wide range of topics such as mental illness, medicine, language and sexuality. For all these topics, Foucault held great interest in how power manifests itself and related to discourse.

In Foucault’s famous work, The History of Sexuality, the building blocks for contemporary FDA are clearly visible.  The History of Sexuality discusses the history (gynealogy) of the subject, analyzes the contemporary structure of discourse around sex, and critically examines how power influences this discourse/topic.

Nowadays, FDA has evolved far beyond the original name of Foucault, and research has been done in a variety of areas. A contemporary example of FDA is from Maggie Boulton, Anna Garnett and Fiona Webster (2021). In their work, they investigated the media narrative around nurses being framed as heroes during the pandemic. Their analysis found that this media portrayal might be dangerous for nurses, creating implicit pressures for nurses to put themselves in harm’s way to uphold this created expectation of them as selfless heroes. 

4. More information on the method

For more information on FDA we can refer you to the following videos and links:

This article by Boulton et al. (2021) about covid FDA analysis.

Section 1: polarisation and power

By Daniel V.

The issue/problem

Polarisation in the Netherlands.

It is almost conventional wisdom that polarisation is a major issue in Dutch society. Both in politics and in everyday life this belief is widespread. To further investigate this claim, I will perform a Foucaultian Discourse Analysis on a specific instance of discourse. I have chosen an interview with Bart Brandsma: a philosopher, consultant and self-proclaimed polarisation expert. His interview is with De Correspondent, an independent online newspaper based in Amsterdam (Bohlmeijer, 2024).

Brandsma talks about what he identifies as major issues around polarisation. His main claim is that polarisation is a type of us-them thinking. In its extreme forms, this can lead to violence and worse. His proposed solution is that a large vocal centre or “middle ground” is needed to maintain social cohesion. Despite the small size of this analysis, I aim to show the role of language use and power in this interview.

Here is a link to the full interview, which is in Dutch. The analysis is based on the transcription of the interview.

The method

• Genealogy

Considering both the general history of polarisation in the Netherlands, and particular Dutch ways of going about things, I will first identify some important background elements to this interview. First, Brandsma has been influenced by his experiences with highly polarised countries. Brandsma has visited places such as former Yugoslavia, Israel and Northern Ireland. These experiences can help explain his strong aversion to polarisation, as he has identified strong polarisation as the issue there, and seen the devastating effects of conflict. Secondly, the way he talks about the middle ground can refer to a variety of things, for example, the Third Way movement of the 90s, something that would have been at its peak during the author’s twenties. For more information on Third Way politics, the Britannica article by Hay (2016) is a good start.

Related to this is the Dutch political practice of “polderen,” a verb that means “to make polders.” The Dutch “poldermodel” is founded on the idea that reasonable compromise is needed in politics. Still, there are more related historical developments. We can for example include the increasingly multicultural nature of Dutch society as, among others, large groups of people with origins the former Dutch colonies, former guest workers from Morocco, Turkey and Eastern Europe who have stayed here in the long term, as well as refugees from West and Central Asia (e.g., Afghanistan, Syria), now live in the Netherlands. This was not an exhaustive list of all relevant history, but these examples show the diverse types of events that can influence a discourse.

• Structural analysis

Polarisation, as it is described in the interview, is when people are not able to tolerate other opinions anymore. The solution from Brandsma is that we need a strong middle ground to mediate more extreme and polarising opinions.

The functioning of this interview thus is to share these opinions about polarisation to the listening ears of the Dutch people. As Brandsma more often makes these types of appearances, he has taken on the role of a public figure or intellectual regarding this topic, as can also be seen on his website.
As structural analysis can be very broad, I will focus on two specific elements. First, the element of who is allowed to speak within this discourse. Someone like Brandsma is able to get interviews to talk about his views in national media. However, sometimes the more polarising figures can also get their shared time in the media. Some polarising figures such as far-right politician Geert Wilders will have their opinions widely broadcasted. However, the people he often speaks ill of, such as refugees and asylum-seekers, often do not get to share their voice in the same way. An implication of this for me, is that the designation of being polarising can work to either silence or empower.

Second is a linguistic element of the analysis. When giving an example about unwanted types of polarisation, Brandsma talks about “the people vs the elite” types of beliefs or conspiracies. He relates this point to Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, whose crimes against humanity are an example of when you take such thinking to the extreme. By invoking a name with such negative connotations, this shows that Brandsma does not believe “elite vs the people” kind of thinking is an acceptable kind of polarisation.

• Power analysis

As there are a lot of possible things to discuss, I have made a selection of three points.

1. Putting certain people or groups in the same sentence.
   For example far-right politicians such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and climate activists such as Greta Thunberg. By putting certain names or organisations next to each other, this will give the reader the impression that these are similar in certain ways. Brandsma does concede that some amount of polarisation can be healthy. For something like climate change, he would concede that some ambition is good to get the conversation going. However, I do not think it is fair to put these people in the same sentence. Greta Thunberg can be seen as overly idealistic, and her proposed worldview might not be practically implementable. Nevertheless, fighting for increased action on climate issues seems to me like a desirable cause, which despite media attention is not actually acted upon in a significant way. At the same time, Geert Wilders has been a major political figure for almost two decades. Although they both have some level of power, the way they use it is radically different in my opinion, which makes this similarity somewhat unfair I believe.
   A note here is that I do not necessarily think that Brandsma believes these figures are similar in some way. But rather, the act of putting them next to each other in this way does convey that message.
2. The middle ground or silent majority
   In the interview, Brandsma distinguishes between different types of people in the centre, or what he calls the ”silent majority.” Some people are more involved or have to be for their job (e.g., mayors, police), while others don’t care as much. One example he gives, is that these “onverschilligen” (indifferent) people want to accomplish something else besides having an opinion on “gendertoiletten” (gendered bathrooms), by which I think he refers to controversy regarding bathroom use for transgender individuals. For me, it is hard to imagine a middle ground here that would be beneficial to the marginalized group. For them, they do not have the luxury of having no opinion on this, as for them this is about a very basic aspect of their life. It is hard to imagine a middle ground between people that wish to exist as queer people in a public space, and people that want to deny this. In such a situation, taking the middle ground would benefit the group with less to lose, or those who already have more power in society.
   To illustrate my point, I have copied the following section from a tweet (legally known as an X-post) by Wu, a transgender woman:

   I genuinely thought that as a trans woman, if [I] ceded some points with the gender critical crowd we could have a healthier conversation and arrive at better public policy. The problem is, they are getting crazier and more extreme. If you admit “trans women don’t belong in women’s sports” they agree, but call you a man the whole time. If you admit, “I understand I am a biological man, but this is how I want to live my life and talking about me like this is degrading” they scream about free speech. (2025)

    

3. Polarisation as an exercise of power.
   In my view, what we can infer from this interview, is that polarisation is strongly related to the ability to exercise power. This is what Brandsma is, I think justifiably so, concerned with. Civil war and genocide are the worst iterations of this, but a lot of awful things can happen even before it gets this far. Communities and families can be torn apart when they cannot see eye-to-eye anymore.
   For me, the following seems to be implied in the interview. Polarisation becomes a thing when people in some way exercise their own power in small or big ways. Not being able to talk about certain subjects anymore, for example, is a form of social regulation. When you do not visit a family member anymore due to them espousing views you strongly disagree with, this is a small way in which you try to exercise your power. Someone with more institutional backing can do much more to enforce their worldview. Thus, having different opinions is not an issue if people can still look each other in the eye. However, if one person can threaten violence, their opinion will hold much more sway. This is why in polarisation debates, the group with less social power, such as refugees or queer people, will often have to concede much more ground.

Results

As I have discussed the results throughout the previous section, I will highlight the three key elements from the analysis. First, the linguistic element. The way things are said has great importance. Putting certain words in the same sentence can have a big impact on how a reader can interpret the text. Second, the power element. Who does or does not have societal power can make a big difference in how a conflict may affect them. For a more privileged person, an insult thrown their way has no big impact. For a marginalized person, these insults can be a reinforcement of their position in society. Lastly, a point regarding the analysis. As I have performed a type of analysis with a focus on power, it was perhaps almost inevitable that I found that power is the crucial element. Where Foucault would happily agree, this might not be the case for everyone.

Section 2: polarisation and climate change

Climate Change

NOS op 3, a Dutch program directed towards youth on the national public television, broadcasted a series of conversations between politicians and citizens in the run-up to the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2023. This is a program where parties could explain their political standpoints on certain issues but also have a conversation with young Dutch citizens and hear their concerns about these societal problems. In this section we will dive into the conversation about climate change, between Esther Ouwehand of the Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD) (the Animal Party), Mirjam Bikker of the ChristenUnie (CU) (a Christian party) and young citizens of the Netherlands. It is round 1 from the episode inserted below:

CU and PvdD are both on the progressive left side of the Dutch political spectrum, CU being more towards the centre on both aspects and PvdD being more left-leaning and more progressive. They both want to take steps towards a greener society, but PvdD is more radical in its ideas.

In the conversation, one of the main themes that comes forward is the need to save the planet, while being cost-effective and not placing too much of the burden on the citizen. This seems to be something everyone agrees on, but still there is a lot of polarisation when it comes to the topic of climate.

Method

• Genealogy

Climate has been a political issue for a while now. In the 1970s a Dutch ministry of environment was set up (Lambeets, 2019). However, there has always been the question if we will choose to spend the money on issues that will show results now or if we will spend money to be able to live on this planet more peacefully for a longer amount of time. In the Netherlands, climate usually is a lesser priority than economics. For a long time the government has not done anything notable for the climate; most initiatives to improve climate conditions have come from the environmental defense organisation. Only Groenlinks, PvdD and to a certain extent D66 and some smaller parties, among which CU, have shown true interest in thinking about the climate. Other parties usually think economics are more important.

• Structural analysis

The part on climate starts with an informational video and some background information. However, this could be seen as steering the watcher towards a certain way of thinking. Notable is that the informational video might already influence the viewer and maybe the people in the studio, by saying that the government could do a lot of things to help the climate and that fossil fuels are one of the biggest culprits of climate change and how big companies that use fossil fuels actually get tax discounts, which seems contradictory. Also, they mention how for the average citizen, driving an electric car is really expensive. This seems to point the viewers, citizens and/or politicians towards a certain direction of conversation or thinking.

The subject of climate is one that is relevant for all people as well as for animals and the rest of nature. In the conversation, the youngsters are asking questions about issues related to climate that are currently present in their personal lives and the influence that the government might have on it. An important issue that is brought up is the issue of climate-friendly travel, and how it is hard for regular citizens to make the switch to electric driving. Something that is evident in the responses of Ouwehand as well as Bikker, is the responsibility the government has in supporting citizens or small businesses in making the transfer towards a greener way of transport, while still making it affordable for them. Bikker’s response, however, was more oriented towards electrical cars, whereas Ouwehand wants to put more focus on investing in public transport. It is not surprising the conversation went this way, seeing as the informational video at the start already steered a bit towards this; this might be because the editorial office already knew what the questions would be and what the standpoints of the politicians might be, or because the citizens and politicians got influenced by the starting video, or a combination of both.

• Power analysis

Who?

In this setting and environment the power relations are a bit less prevalent, since the politicians and the citizens are on the same type of seats and are having a civilized conversation with one another.

However, the power relations are obviously still there, because the citizens are situated on one side and the politicians on the other. It is also apparent in the way the citizens ask the questions that the politicians will answer. Foucault suggested that knowledge and power are related, and here you see that the politicians are the ones deemed as knowledgeable, and the citizens the ones with issues they need an answer to. It is interesting to note, however, that in this situation the citizens as well as the politicians can be said to have power, albeit in a different way. The citizens have the power of voting and of course there are other ways to have an influence on politics, like asking the right critical questions in a program like this or things like a citizen initiative. The politicians on the other hand, are already in power because they currently have seats in the House of Representatives. In the language that is being used, it is clear that the politicians are more knowledgeable on the subject and have a more advanced vocabulary on it, since it is their day job to deal with issues like this. They do however seem to try to use ordinary language to make their story understandable for everyone, which is good when trying to reach a bigger audience, which is what politicians want.

Why?

The Dutch youngsters are all people who have not had so many chances to vote and have probably not been politically engaged for the longest time, but they probably have to live in Dutch society for a large number of years, which means that who will govern the country is going to have a big influence on their lives. Their voices and issues have not been heard so much yet, and the other way around they might not be so familiar with politics yet, and as NOS op 3 is targeted towards youngsters, it seems as though the television program is trying to spark political engagement in young people and to have a chance for political questions that youngsters might have to be answered. The program made episodes with all the leaders of all the Dutch political parties, which gives young people at home who have not been politically engaged for a long time a chance to get to know all the political parties and some of their standpoints.

Interests?

The politicians obviously want to gain votes by having an appealing story for the voters on how they are going to handle certain problems.

The young Dutch citizens want their voices and problems to be heard and to be considered in politics, and to get to know the standpoints of the political parties, to be able to make a well-considered decision for which party they want to vote in the end.

Results

From this analysis, it seems that the topic of climate is mostly polarising in the choice between prioritising economics or the longevity of the earth. As for the problems of the youngsters, one of the most prevalent was the one regarding greener transport, and everyone agreed on the need for solutions, which probably needs effort from the government, but also from the citizens.

Sources:

• Anderson, P.T. (Director). (2025). One Battle After Another [Film]. Warner Bros. Pictures; Ghoulardi Film Company; Domain Entertainment

Aster, A. (Director).(2025). Eddington [Film]. A24; Square Peg; 828 Productions; IPR.VC; Access Entertainment.

• Bohlmeijer, L. (2024, April 20). Wat moet je doen als je het wij-zij-denken in wordt getrokken? Durf in het midden te blijven staan, zegt deze filosoof. De Correspondent. https://decorrespondent.nl/15262/wat-moet-je-doen-als-je-het-wij-zij-denken-in-wordt-getrokken-durf-in-het-midden-te-blijven-staan-zegt-deze-filosoof/e017e425-b5a4-0ccb-098d-3b340fe012c4
• Boulton, M., Garnett, A., & Webster, F. (2021). A Foucauldian discourse analysis of media reporting on the nurse‐as‐hero during COVID‐19. Nursing Inquiry, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12471
• Hay, C. (2016, November 22). Third way | History & Features. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/third-way
• Hupkes, M. (2025, September 24) Opinie: We zijn helemaal niet zo gepolariseerd als ons wordt aangepraat. De Volkskrant. https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-we-zijn-helemaal-niet-zo-gepolariseerd-als-ons-wordt-aangepraat~b61a0b45/
• Inside Polarisation. (n.d.). Home – Inside polarisation. https://insidepolarisation.nl/
• Isin, G. (2015, November 13) Michael Foucault as an activist intellectual. openDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/michel-foucault-as-activist-intellectual/
• Gutting, Gary, Oksala (2025) Michel Foucault, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2025 Edition) <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/entries/foucault/>
• Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2021). Foucauldian Discourse Analysis: Moving Beyond a Social Constructionist Analytic. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211018009
• Lambeets, Ken. (2024, September 5). Nederlandse politici vinden het klimaat niet belangrijk genoeg. Voxweb. https://www.voxweb.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-politici-vinden-het-klimaat-niet-belangrijk-genoeg.
• NOSop3. (2023, November 12). Debat tussen Mirjam Bikker en Esther Ouwehand met burgers over klimaat en zorg [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4C76-NMtCk&list=PLVV2i0FqMlUEdbu-k-CpORwb7d5CvkK_K
• Powers, P. (2013). Rawlinson’s three axes of structural analysis: A useful framework for a foucauldian discourse analysis. Aporia, 5(1).
• Villeneuve, D. (Director). (2010). Incendies [Fires] [Film]. TS Productions; Phi Group; micro_scope.
• Wu, B. [@BriannaWu]. (2025, November 1). Trans sisters. I’m pretty sure I was wrong. I am sorry. I genuinely thought that as a trans woman, if [Post(formerly tweet)]. X (formerly twitter). https://x.com/BriannaWu/status/1984574165643403370