Foucault: Discourse And Discursive Formation

NM3207 - Concept Paper

Thaslim Begum Mohamed Aiyoob (A0100657M) The terms ‘discourse’ and ‘discursive formation’ were introduced and widely used by the French philosopher and social theorist Michael Foucault in his analysis of several institutions and their ways of establishing and forming of knowledge. Foucault’s interest in the production of knowledge, the way knowledge functions and put in use is reflected in his works such as The Order of Discourse (1971) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972). Foucault’s usage of discourse is defined as a group of statements that provide the language to talk about a topic, where visuals are also considered statements. Discursive formations involve the operation of several discourses. Therefore the

During World War 1, Eugene Vcitor Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison, for expressing his opposition to the “war on terror” (http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/free-speech-after-911-why-advocating-for-peace-is-now-a-crime). Hence 9/11 functions as a identifier for the different meanings of freedom of speech as the social practices of people such as their references and the observations discuss greatly on the cause, effects and consequences of the attacks. Hecne in doing so, themes suchs as Islam as a religion of violence were expressed on the basis of freedom of speech, and that this infact had an adverse consequence of the freedom of religion for Muslims aroundt hr world, though more significantly felt in the US (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/911-attacks-changed-much-but-not-everything). Hence the categorization meanings that constitute the object, freedom of speech after 9/11 illustrate the thematic choices and relations that can be found in this specific discursive

The Firat Amandement passed in 1791, (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment made it indisputablay clear that free speech was the basis for the government of the people, was now to come under greater scrunity by the governmetn themselves. Court for the first time ever upheld the criminalization of speech advocating only lawful activity, on the theory that it might in some indirect way lead someone else to engage in wrongdoing (http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/free-speech-after-911-why-advocating-for-peace-is-now-a-crime) whwere repvipusly in Brandenburg vs Ohio, the court had previsouly protected and advocated crime so as to uphold the First Amendment. Hence the court here functions as an institution that delimites the knowledge of freedom of speech, and establishes a new network of realtions, such as the Patriot Act (2001) undeniably expanded the government’s surveillance powers and the scope of some criminal laws, hence shaping and giving new meaning to the discursive formation of Freedom of Speech(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html?_r=0). This in effects influences social behavior as though there is an increase in detesting views against Islam, and opinioned vocalization in news channels and personal interactions, the nature in which Freedom of Speech operates in