Theoretical framework: Foucauldian discourse analysis

As described in Chapter 2, previous research on dietary health has not looked qualitatively at factors that may affect the food system and the behaviour of pertinent actors within it. Quantitative or reductionist approaches to

understanding contextual determinants of diet and health have been very limited (Galea et al. 2010; Diez Roux 2011). A more comprehensive approach that accounts for the complexity of the system is called for. In trying to

understand determinants of diet and relationships between actors in the food system, unpacking the discursive construction of responsibility for healthy eating makes a useful contribution.

Discourse analysis offers an epistemological approach that helps scrutinise such a concept as responsibility; it is a way of exploring social interactions and relations, how meanings are created and how social actors are produced; it is the “study of language in use” (Wetherell et al. 2001, p.3). Discourse analysis sits within the poststructuralist tradition – wherein the constitution of language and knowledge are subjected to questioning because of the recognition that they are contingent, uncertain and often involve power relations (ibid. 2001).

Indeed, post-structuralism seeks to understand the “difference, complex relations, and instability” that are woven through life (Filmer et al. 2004, p.42).

It thereby provides a suitable way of looking at the complexity of the food system and the relationships of certain actors within it, using discourse analysis.

Michel Foucault’s definition of ‘discourse’ was varied, but predominantly, consisted of two, connected strands: texts or statements that have some meaningful effect in the world, and a group of such statements that coalesce to form a discursive ‘formation’ which, similarly, has consequences. As such, Foucault was interested in the generation and circulation of knowledge (Waitt 2010); Foucauldian discourse theory falls within constructivist ontology, described by Bryman as understanding that: “social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors. It implies that

social phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision” (Bryman 2008).

Similarly, a Foucauldian approach seeks to examine the ways social concepts and identities are constructed and how they persist through “discourse as a system of representation” (Hall 2001a, p.72). Examining the construction of responsibility at the nexus of the food system and public health offers insight into the way the word is used to attribute responsibility to the different actors in the system, and how those actors are themselves constructed, both explicitly and implicitly.

Foucault also adds to discourse theory the notion of power – he was interested in how certain discursive formations acquired ascendancy to the degree that they appear to constitute the ‘truth’ about that topic and to regulate social conduct. His focus on knowledge production, power and the body helped to contextualise constructionist theory, thereby giving theories of representation a practical application (Hall 2001a). One way Foucault did this was through the circular concept of power/knowledge; this proposed that knowledge is a form of power and that power is involved in promoting or silencing knowledge about any given subject (Waitt 2010). In other words, the portrayal of any thing affects, regulates or produces that which is portrayed. This, in turn, did away with the idea that there was absolute truth in knowledge – Foucault was not concerned with whether the representation of any thing was ‘real’ or true – rather with a “discursive formation sustaining a regime of truth” that emerges because power can work to make it ‘true’ (Hall 2001a, p.76).

Foucault viewed the body as the key site at which various discursive formations are located, and on which power/knowledge is inscribed (Hall 2001a). His ideas are therefore particularly fitting for examining the concept of responsibility for dietary health in the food system: discourses concerned with how members of the public manage a behaviour that affects their bodies, within a broader

system in which they relate to other actors. What are of interest in public health are the discursive structures that construct responsibility, subjectivities and the

effect of that construction – what ‘regime of truth’ emerges about the actors in the food system and where responsibility for healthy eating lies? Indeed, it has been said that “doing discourse analysis assumes that you are concerned with the discursive production of some kind of authoritative account” (G. Rose 2001, p.142).

3.2.1 Doing Foucauldian discourse analysis

Foucault himself deliberately did not give explicit methodological guidance on how to conduct discourse analysis for fear that it would become mechanical rather than flexible and intuitive (Waitt 2010). Rather, the way he

conceptualised matters such as discourse, power, knowledge and truth offer lenses through which topics can be examined. Some scholars have, however, created loose, step-by-step guidelines on how to conduct Foucauldian discourse analysis; two helped to guide my methodology, see Figure 3.2. Some of the steps are self-explanatory – point one covers the initial selection of the topic, as discussed in Chapter 1, the Introduction and consolidated throughout Chapter 2, the literature review. More detail on how the rest of these – i.e. data

gathering and analysis – were pursued will follow throughout relevant sections in the rest of this chapter.

Figure 3.2: Guide to doing Foucauldian discourse analysis 1. select your topic

2. identify possible sources of data then gather these

3. code/identify key themes – once for organisation and once for interpretation

4. look for evidence of an inter-relationship between discourses 5. identify the discursive strategies used

6. how do they work to persuade and create effects of ‘truth’?

7. look for “rupture and resilience”, complexity and counter-discourses 8. look for the absences and silences

9. be aware of limitations of the research (adapted from Carabine 2001; Waitt 2010)

3.2.2 Complex systems and Foucault

Early reading of the literature revealed complex systems theory as a good

framework on which to model the research but it was once the results were forming that Foucault’s ideas seemed the ideal method for analysis. Further reading suggested that the two were very compatible particularly considering:

the discursive construction of responsibility, the idea of power-knowledge and the ‘regime of truth’ about responsibility and its ability to embody complexity.

Additionally, the two approaches appeared to dovetail serendipitously.

Figure 3.3 summarises similarities between what is considered important in the approaches to systems and to discourses, a novel synthesis that emerged during the course of this research. The issue of dietary determinants of health and responsibility have been presented within a complex systems framework (Meadows 1999; Filmer et al. 2004; Hall 2001a; Finegood et al. 2008; Diez Roux 2011; Curtis & Riva 2010b; Rutter 2012; Hawe et al. 2009). But when it comes to analysis of data, a qualitative, complex systems approach loses its utility. This is because it is descriptive rather than analytical; it cannot account for the system in action, certainly qualitatively, rather it provides a useful, static view of what components to examine. Foucault, however, intrinsically allowed for the complexity of any given system or relationship. As such, both approaches account for complexity itself, for the primacy of the relationships between components or people, and for the realistically stochastic, unpredictable, changing nature of relationships and outcomes/meanings. What is more, one property necessary so that a complex system remains in balance, states that each component (person) must be able to match the complexity or difficulty of their task. This can be mirrored in Foucauldian thought: the idea that different actors have differing amounts of power in any given discourse, or system i.e.

they may not have the influence to match expectations of them. This symmetry emerged through my research and proved to be effective in data analysis.

Figure 3.3: Gross similarities between complex systems & Foucauldian approaches

Complex systems theory Foucauldian approach to discourse Heterogeneity of components System/society is made up of groups

of heterogeneous people Non-linear, stochastic nature of

system

Non-deterministic, unpredictable outcomes and behaviour

Randomness and dynamism of any system

Fluidity and instability of behaviour and discourses

Relationships between parts give rise to whole

Relationships give rise to discourse Condition/strength of given

components give rise to certain outcomes (feedback)

Power of certain actors produces certain behaviours

Connections between & relative strength of components are crucial

Power relations between actors are important and must be scrutinised The chapter now turns to the research process itself, which took part in three, main stages of data gathering and analysis: documents, focus groups and interviews, although the latter two were analysed as one dataset.