Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

---
name: foucauldian-discourse-analysis
description: Examine not what is said but what makes it possible to say it. Identify the rules governing what can be thought, who can speak, and what is systematically excluded.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.4029
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- foucauldian-discourse-analysis
- writing
---

# Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

Examine not what is said but what makes it possible to say it. Identify the rules governing what can be thought, who can speak, and what is systematically excluded.

---

## Overview

Foucauldian discourse analysis examines discursive formations—the historically specific rules that govern what statements are possible, acceptable, and authoritative within a domain. Discourse is not merely language; it includes practices, institutions, and power relations that make certain utterances possible while excluding others.

**Core Principle:** "Discourse is a violence we do to things."

---

## When to Use

- Analyzing a field of expertise (medicine, law, psychology)
- Examining what can and cannot be said about a topic
- Understanding how a domain of knowledge operates
- Identifying hidden assumptions in a debate
- Exposing what is excluded by a framework
- Understanding who can speak with authority

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| discourse | Yes | The field, framework, or domain to analyze |
| sample | No | Specific texts, statements, or practices |
| question | No | Particular aspect to focus on |
| domain | No | Institutional context |

---

## The Analysis Framework

### Step 1: Identify the Discursive Formation

Define the domain under examination. What field of statements are we analyzing?

**Questions:**
- What is the subject matter?
- What institutions produce this discourse?
- What is the historical period?
- What is included in this domain?

**Example:** "We are examining psychiatric discourse on depression in contemporary clinical practice."

### Step 2: Map the Objects

What objects does this discourse constitute? Discourse does not merely describe pre-existing objects; it brings them into being as objects of knowledge.

**Questions:**
- What can be spoken about?
- What objects are created by this discourse?
- What distinctions are drawn?
- What categories are established?

**Example:** "Psychiatric discourse constitutes 'depression' as a mental illness with symptoms, causes, and treatments. It creates 'the depressed patient' as a category of person."

### Step 3: Identify Subject Positions

From what positions can one speak? Who has authority? What roles are available?

**Questions:**
- Who can speak with authority on this topic?
- What qualifications are required?
- What positions are available (expert, patient, critic)?
- What forms of subjectivity are assumed?

**Example:** "The psychiatrist speaks from a position of medical authority. The patient speaks from a position of suffering that requires confession. Family members speak as witnesses. Critics speak from outside, often dismissed as uninformed."

### Step 4: Trace the Concepts

What concepts organize this discourse? What distinctions, categories, and frameworks structure what can be thought?

**Questions:**
- What concepts are central?
- How are they defined and related?
- What conceptual framework organizes the field?
- What theoretical assumptions are operative?

**Example:** "Central concepts: symptom, diagnosis, treatment, remission, relapse. The framework assumes depression is a disease entity with biological and psychological components, treatable through medication and therapy."

### Step 5: Expose the Rules of Formation

What rules govern what can be stated? What makes a statement acceptable within this discourse?

**Questions:**
- What makes a statement count as true?
- What evidence is accepted?
- What forms of argument are valid?
- What would be rejected as meaningless?

**Example:** "Acceptable statements must reference diagnostic criteria, cite research, use medical terminology. Statements claiming depression is not real, or that psychiatry is social control, are excluded as unscientific or ideological."

### Step 6: Identify Exclusions

What is unsayable? What cannot be thought within this framework? What is excluded as mad, false, or illegitimate?

**Questions:**
- What cannot be said within this discourse?
- What positions are foreclosed?
- What questions cannot be asked?
- What is rendered invisible?

**Example:** "Unsayable: that depression might be a reasonable response to circumstances; that diagnostic categories are social constructions; that what is called 'illness' might be protest or refusal. These can only be said from outside, as critique."

### Step 7: Analyze the Power Effects

How does this discourse function as power? What does it enable and constrain? What forms of subjectivity does it produce?

**Questions:**
- What is enabled by this discourse?
- What is constrained or foreclosed?
- What subjects are produced?
- What interventions are authorized?

**Example:** "Psychiatric discourse enables treatment and care but also confinement and medicalization. It produces subjects who understand themselves as mentally ill, who seek diagnosis, who take medication as 'treatment for a disease.' It authorizes intervention by medical professionals."

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Foucauldian Discourse Analysis: [Discourse]

### The Discursive Formation
[Definition of the domain and its boundaries]

### Objects
[What objects are constituted by this discourse]

### Subject Positions
[Who can speak, from what positions, with what authority]

### Concepts
[Key concepts and the framework they create]

### Rules of Formation
[What makes statements acceptable or unacceptable]

### Exclusions
[What cannot be said, thought, or asked]

### Power Effects
[What the discourse enables, constrains, and produces]

### Implications
[What becomes visible when we see discourse this way]
```

---

## Key Principles

1. **Discourse is Productive** - It does not merely describe; it constitutes
2. **No Neutral Position** - Analysis is itself within discourse
3. **Focus on Statements** - Analyze actual statements, not abstract ideas
4. **Historicize** - Discourses have histories; they are not eternal
5. **Trace Power** - Every discourse has power effects
6. **Attend to Exclusions** - What cannot be said is as important as what can

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Constraints

- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology

## Example

**Input:** Analyze the discourse of "work-life balance."

**Output:**



**Why this works:**

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

**Alternative applications:**

This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks


## Foucauldian Discourse Analysis: Work-Life Balance

### The Discursive Formation
The discourse of "work-life balance" emerged in the 1980s and proliferated in corporate, therapeutic, and self-help contexts. It addresses how individuals should manage the competing demands of employment and personal life.

### Objects
The discourse constitutes:
- "Work" and "life" as separate domains to be balanced
- "Balance" as a desirable and achievable state
- "Stress" as a danger of imbalance
- "Boundaries" as tools for achieving balance
- The "whole person" who has both work needs and life needs

### Subject Positions
- **The employee** who must manage their own balance (responsibilized subject)
- **The HR professional** who designs policies to enable balance
- **The coach/therapist** who advises on achieving balance
- **The organization** that offers balance as a benefit
- **The overworked** as cautionary example

### Concepts
- **Balance:** A state of equilibrium between competing demands
- **Boundaries:** Lines protecting "life" from "work"
- **Self-care:** Practices for maintaining balance
- **Flexibility:** Arrangements allowing personal control
- **Burnout:** Consequence of failing to balance

### Rules of Formation
Acceptable statements:
- Balance is achievable through individual effort and smart choices
- Organizations can support balance through policies
- Balance improves productivity and wellbeing

Unacceptable (meaningless or radical):
- The very distinction between work and life is problematic
- Balance is impossible under capitalism
- The demand for balance is itself a form of exploitation

### Exclusions
What cannot be said:
- That "life" under this framework means primarily consumption, reproduction, and recovery for more work
- That "balance" individualizes structural problems
- That the very language of balance accepts work's claim on life
- That the demand to balance is a new form of labor
- That some work is life-enhancing, some life is work-like

### Power Effects
The discourse produces:
- **Responsibilized subjects** who blame themselves for imbalance
- **Self-management** as the solution to structural exploitation
- **Organizations** absolved of responsibility ("we offer flexibility")
- **A new domain of expertise** (coaches, apps, retreats)
- **Depoliticization** of labor conditions

The discourse enables individuals to articulate dissatisfaction while foreclosing structural critique. It manages discontent without addressing causes.

### Implications
Seeing "work-life balance" as discourse reveals:
- The separation of work and life is historically specific
- Balance discourse may extend work's colonization of life
- The framework cannot question whether current work arrangements are acceptable
- Alternative discourses might refuse the separation entirely

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Michel Foucault** expert persona. Use it when analyzing any field of knowledge, expertise, or domain of statements.

Related skills:
- **foucauldian-genealogy:** Trace historical emergence
- **foucauldian-power-mapping:** Trace power in situations
- **foucauldian-problematization:** Question how something became a problem