Institutional discourse

Discourse and power

Discourse is closely power-oriented and hegemonic. Because discourses bind people's 'minds' together. Discourse "manufactures the consent of others". Principally, the continuation of social cognition is usually related to the exercise of power. The power of discourse is dependent on who the controller is and who has access to the discourse.

So, let’s define what is power within the context of discourse? For Fuko, Power is never localised here or there, never in anybody’s hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth”

Power primarily as a resource present in our physical and social environment. ‘Having power’ therefore means to be capable of drawing upon this resource, of employing it as a tool in order to achieve one’s goals; ‘exercising power’ describes the act of making use of this resource. We can distinguish between two forms in which power resources are present in our environment: The first one - ‘potential power’ - is inherent to our physical environment and consists of virtually anything which might serve somebody as a tool in achieving his or her goals. The second one - ‘structural power’ - is the result of previous exercise of power; it is inherent to our social system in the form of habits, conventions and institutions.

In order to know how discourse and power are related, we can distinguish between four functions of discourse in relation to the exercise and the distribution of power: (i) discourse as the bearer of episodic power,

Episodic power can be found in directives, where language is used to incite the addressee to a specific action. Thereby, success often depends on the speakers’ mastery of different linguistic features. The most important role of discourse as episodic power is connected to the other power functions of discourse.

2. 
   discourse distributing power among individuals, i.e. discourse in its function of shaping social relationships, it is associated with the shaping of power relations. Every use of language involves some direct or indirect statement about social relationships.
   
3. 
   discourse as structural power, i.e. the petrification (pötrifikeyşn - daşlaşma) of discourse in habits, conventions and institutions, When discourse is petrified in habits, conventions, or institutions it is always the locus of structural power. The forms in which discourse serves to maintain power structures are manifold: Every social network has its specific conventions which, through the regulation of speech acts, differentiate it from other groups. Structural power, however, might not only be sustained by discourse, but also by unequal access to resources of ‘potential’ power.
   

and (iv) discourse justifying the distribution of power, i.e. discourse involved in the construction of meaning, in the production of truth.

The role discourse plays with regard to the distribution of power and the maintenance of social structures is closely related to its involvement in the shaping of meaning and the production of truth. Discourse controls the flux of experience of physical and social reality and therefore shapes society’s conceptions of that reality.

Discourse is portrayed as a -public enterprise built by many hands, whose 'cause' is not a matter of individuals' mental processing and whose effects go beyond the individuals involved: discursive practice is public activity.

Having the power of accessing certain discourse, a person categorizes him/herself with a group and contributes directly or indirectly to the discursive practice.

The external aspects of the discursive practice which are termed social practice, conceptualizes and acknowledges a person as part of the group (the elite) who 'own' the exclusive knowledge that belongs to a particular discourse.

By so doing, a strong commitment frame is formed within people who belong to certain groups

21.