This article was downloaded by: [SENESCYT ]

On: 09 December 2013, At: 12:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and

Gender Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/swom20

Discourse, Discourse Everywhere:

Subject Agency in Feminist
Discourse Methodology
Carol Bacchi

School of History and Politics , University of Adelaide ,

Australia
Published online: 22 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Carol Bacchi (2005) Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject Agency in
Feminist Discourse Methodology, NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 13:03,
198-209, DOI: 10.1080/08038740600600407
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08038740600600407

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Nordic Journal of Womens Studies,

Vol. 13, No. 3, 198209, December 2005

Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject

Agency in Feminist Discourse
Methodology

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

CAROL BACCHI
School of History and Politics, University of Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provoke much-needed discussion on the uses by
feminists, in particular feminist political scientists, of the language of discourse, discourses and
discursive. The terms, it argues, have become ubiquitous, with considerable confusion about
intended meanings. A particular concern is the growing tendency among some feminist political
scientists to use discourse as shorthand for ways of talking about an issue. Critical to sorting
through different meanings of discourse, it argues, is the question of subject agencythe extent
to which subjects can use discourses or are constituted by them. As a way forward the article
advances a dual-focus agenda that builds bridges across discourse traditions; identifying both the
ways in which interpretive and conceptual schemas delimit understandings, and the politics
involved in the intentional deployment of concepts and categories to achieve specific political goals.

There is no doubt that the discovery of discourse in all its different meanings has
been a boon to feminist analysis. In general, attending to discourse has allowed
feminists to draw attention to the importance of meaning-making in political life.
However, the word has become ubiquitous. The terms discourse, discourses and
discursive as a modifier are appearing everywhere.
The loose use of the term leads to ambiguity around some key issues in discourse
theory: the extent to which political subjects are free to pick up and use specific
discourses, and the extent to which we are all in discourse. Both issues relate to
conceptions of subject agency.1 In my view, neglecting or bypassing these issues can
lead to unreflexive political proposals and practices, as I intend to demonstrate. By
unreflexive political practices, I mean the uptake of political proposals that can have
a range of deleterious consequences. While these issues are relevant to all reform
agendas, my specific interest is the implications for feminist political practices.
This article is intended as a clarifying exercise rather than as a critique of specific
uses of the term discourse. As argued elsewhere it is inconsistent to search for a
correct definition of discourse because the whole idea of discourse is that
Correspondence Address: Carol Bacchi, School of History and Politics, Napier Building 423, University of
Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia. Tel.: 61-8 830 34548. Email: carol.bacchi@adelaide.edu.au
0803-8740 Print/1502-394X Online/05/010001209 # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08038740600600407

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

199

definitions play an important part in delineating knowledge (Bacchi 2000). Hence,

they require scrutiny, not replication. It is more important therefore to identify the
role(s) the term is expected to play in intellectual practices and to pay heed when
particular uses of the term may work against agreed upon political projects. My
concern in this article is that particular uses of the term discourse in some feminist
political science works against a feminist agenda of addressing the needs and
interests of diverse groups of women.
The argument is developed in three stages: providing a brief overview of discourse
traditions, noting the ways in which feminist political science and other feminist
analyses engage these traditions, and identifying ambiguity in some of this work
around the relationship between discourse and the nature of subjectivity. In the
process the relationship between discourse theory and the sociological tradition of
framework theory, which is used by a number of feminist political scientists (Verloo
2001), is discussed, along with consideration of the usefulness of post-structuralist
discourse psychology for feminist political science. The concluding section offers a
dual problematic for thinking about subject agency in political life, and a dual-focus
feminist research agenda that constructs bridges across discourse traditions.
Discourse Traditions: Discourse Analysis or Analysis of Discourse(s)?
Available literature on the various traditions of discourse theory is immense. As
Margaret Wetherell explains, discourse research can be found across the social
sciences, in the health sciences, in business studies, in computer science and in
education (Wetherell 2001:379). Distinct disciplinary understandings of the term
discourse can be found in linguistics, anthropology, social psychology, sociology and
politics. Discourse traditions include: conversation analysis, Foucauldian research,
critical discourse analysis and critical linguistics, discursive psychology, Bakhtinian
research, interactional sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking. There is
also internal dispute about the meaning of the term discourse within some of these
traditions (Wetherell 2001:3812).
For the purposes of this article it is helpful to highlight two central analytic
traditions in discourse theory, a social psychological focus on patterns of speech
(discourse analysis), and a political theoretical focus on the ways in which issues are
given a particular meaning within a specific social setting (analysis of discourses)
(Potter & Wetherell 1990; Burr 1995:164). In the first tradition the term discourse
means something very close to language. There is a focus on the linguistic and
rhetorical devices used in the construction of a text (Burr 1995:184). In the second
tradition the goal is to identify, within a text, institutionally supported and culturally
influenced interpretive and conceptual schemas (discourses) that produce particular
understandings of issues and events.
In the discourse analysis tradition, much of the material analysed comes from
interviews. The task is to identify how individual subjects negotiate their way
through pervasive but conflicting discursive structures/meanings (Stapleton &
Wilson 2004:46). The analysis of discourses tradition includes a wide array of
theorists united by the project of identifying and analysing discourses within texts.
This tradition includes policy theorists intent on textual analysis of policy speeches

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

200

C. Bacchi

and documents (Bacchi 2000), and critical discourse analysts more generally, whose
goal is to identify aspects of the political nature of systems of thought (Roberts
2004:34). This group is interested in discourses in the plural, rather than in analysing
discourse (conversation).
The distinction between these two traditions should not be drawn too sharply.
Clearly the interest of discourse analysts in discursive structures/meanings indicates
sensitivity to the interpretive and conceptual schemas that form the primary focus
among those interested in the analysis of discourses. At the same time those interested
in the analysis of discourses often pay heed to the use of metaphors and speech
patterns within the text studied.
Despite these overlaps it is possible to discern a tension between (and sometimes
within) the two traditions around the issue of subject agency, over whether we ought
to think of subjects primarily as discourse users or as constituted in discourse.
Foucault is most frequently aligned with the second position, given his claim that
rather than thinking of individuals as oppressed by power relations, they are the
prime effects of power (Foucault 1980:98). In Stephen Balls words, for Foucault,
We do not speak the discourse. The discourse speaks us. (Ball 1990:1718).
Concern about this issue is longstanding. A 1990 exchange between leading
discourse psychologists, Potter and Wetherell on one side, and Ian Parker on the
other, clarifies the terms of the debate. Potter and Wetherell took issue with Ian
Parkers Foucauldian definition of discourses as regulated systems or sets of
statements which construct objects, on the grounds that this definition tends to
reify ideas as objects (Potter & Wetherell 1990:2056; Parker 1990).2 By contrast,
they explain that their goal is to focus on the functional orientation of language
and the actual working of discourse as a constitutive part of social practices situated
in specific contexts (Potter & Wetherell 1990:2067; emphasis added). They
introduce the notion of interpretative repertoires and suggest that it could usefully
replace the concept of discourse. Interpretive repertoires refer to discernible clusters
of terms, descriptions, common-places () and figures of speech often clustered
around metaphors or vivid images. In their view attention needs to centre on the
ways in which subjects can invoke different terms from the repertoire according to
their suitability to an immediate context (Potter & Wetherell 1990:20910). The
focus in this understanding is on subjects selective use of parts of a repertoire.
Alongside this emphasis on subjects social practices and active use of discourses,
Potter and Wetherell clarify that, in their view, repertoires are not infinitely flexible
resources that are artfully and knowingly invoked by people. They identify a clear
tension between seeing people as active users of discourse on the one hand, and
seeing discourse as generating, enabling and constraining on the other. The task in
their view is to study both how people use discourse and how discourse uses
people (Potter & Wetherell 1990:21314).
Whereas Potter and Wetherell emphasize the first of these two projects, Ian
Parkers work concentrates on the latter, on how discourse uses people. According
to Parker, discourses are sets of meanings which constitute objects (Parker
1990:1956). Importantly, discourses contain subjects, meaning that we cannot
avoid the perceptions of ourselves and others that discourses invite. A key point, in
contrast to Potter and Wetherells emphasis on situated practice, is that once we

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

201

start to describe what texts mean, we are elaborating discourses that go beyond
individual intentions (Parker 1990:20001; emphasis added). Parker proceeds to
elaborate how discourses support institutions and reproduce power relations. He
then expressly addresses the question How do we escape discourse? and replies
that, since discourse is available to us to examine, our task becomes intervening in
the contradictions it contains.
This discussion usefully sets the scene for consideration of feminist discourse
theory and the issue of subject agency. For feminists, the discovery of discourse has
proved most useful in identifying the ways in which women are often positioned as
other (Bacchi 1996). The discourses of femininity and masculinity, for example,
are identified as hegemonic interpretive schemas affecting the lives of many women
and men in a range of ways. These discourses are called dominant or hegemonic in
order to highlight the power they exert in society. At the same time many feminist
theorists are intent on preserving room for subjects to move within the constraints
imposed by hegemonic discourses. Dorothy Smith, for example, insists that we must
find some alternative to post-structuralist/post-modern rejection of the possibility of
referring to what exists beyond discourse and independently of discourses
positioning. Her response is to direct attention to the locally organized practices
of actual people (Smith 1999:98). Wendy Hollway has also expressed discontent
with the implications of Foucauldian theory for womens subjectivity (Hollway
2001:278). Sara Mills is ambivalent on the topic. On the one hand she argues that
feminists have had to rework understandings of discourse to serve political ends,
on the other hand she suggests that the more unstable notion of the self in
Foucauldian discourse theory has been enormously productive for current
feminist theory (Mills 1997:77, 103).
To an extent feminist uses of the concept of discourse can be identified as working
within either the discourse analysis or the analysis of discourse(s) traditions, despite
the interdisiciplinarity of much feminist theory. For example, a recent edition of the
European Journal of Womens Studies (2004) contains three articles including the
terms discourse or discursive in their titles (Roberts 2004; Kantola & Squires 2004;
Stapleton & Wilson 2004). Both the Roberts and the Kantola and Squires articles
can be located within the analysis of discourse(s) tradition, while Stapleton and
Wilson work within the tradition of discourse analysis. Similarly, in this edition of
NORA (3/05) the work of Eva Magnusson, a psychologist, fits within the discourse
analysis tradition, while Lenita Freidenvall directs attention to the operation of
dominant discourses, in the analysis of discourses tradition. At the same time some
feminist political scientists cut across disciplinary boundaries. In this collection,
Hege Skjeie and Mari Teigen combine an analysis of rhetorical strategies among
equal rights supporters, in the discourse analysis tradition, with a deconstruction of
liberal and neo-liberal discourse (the analysis of discourses tradition) (2005). Malin
Ronnblom also builds bridges between the two traditions by combining a discussion
of womens subject positions, in the discourse analysis tradition, with a close study of
dominant discourses of gender operating in Swedish regional politics (2005).
The key question raised in this article is: are feminist uses of the term discourse
accomplishing the goals feminists intend? There is an increasing tendency in some
feminist political science to use the term discourse as shorthand for ways of arguing

202

C. Bacchi

about an issue. This tendency has two effects. It loses the sense in which hegemonic
discourses operate to constrain meaning and as a consequence makes it difficult for
feminists to reflect upon the political implications of being located in discourse(s)
themselves. The issue of subject agency is blurred and feminist political projects are
subjected to insufficient scrutiny. The next section uses the Kantola and Squires
piece to illustrate this argument (2004). The succeeding section draws upon the
Stapleton and Wilson article to help identify the promise and usefulness of poststructuralist discourse psychology in addressing the issue of subject agency (2004).
The conclusion puts forward a dual-focus research agenda that incorporates a crossdisciplinary approach to discourse analysis.

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Analysis of Discourse(s) in Feminist Theory

Kantola and Squires are concerned to identify and reflect upon the discursive
systems of thought within which political subjects operate. They analyse pieces of
text to reveal the discourses operating within them. However, they appear to employ
the term discourse(s) in two quite different ways, moving between attempts to
identify underlying systems of thought or dominant discourses; e.g. sexual
domination discourse, and discourse(s) as characterizations of the problem of
prostitution in public/political debate; public nuisance discourse, moral order
discourse, kerb crawler discourse, sex work discourse (Kantola & Squires 2004).
This same tendency appears in the Freidenvall article in this collection. There are
references, for example, to a fast track discourse and an incremental track
discourse to refer to two different ways of describing campaigns for quotas for
women in political representation. At the same time the term discourse appears as
hegemonic discourse elsewhere in the paper. Indeed Freidenvall is directly
concerned with the problematic motivating this contribution: the empirical
problem of manoeuvring within and beside hegemonic discourse (Freidenvall 2005:
175186). In the second case, however, discourse has a very different meaning from
its use in phrases like fast track discourse.
The slippage between these two meanings of discourse(s) requires reflection. The
identification of discourse(s) as institutionally supported and culturally influenced
conceptual and interpretive schemas that influence the understanding of an issue, has
as its goal interrogating those premises, and showing how they operate to delimit an
issue in specific ways. By contrast, the tendency to use the term discourse as
shorthand for ways of talking about an issue like prostitution or quotas is
ambiguous in its intent. On the one hand Kantola and Squires want to identify to
what extent prostitution is constituted as a moral evil or as a necessary social
practice. However, they also have a second purpose for their analysisassessing
particular framings of prostitution for their political dangers or usefulness.
Freidenvalls purpose in talking about fast track discourse versus incremental
track discourse appears to be more descriptive than prescriptive.
My concern here is that slippage in the use of the term discourse produces
confusion. It becomes difficult to understand just what the word is supposed to
mean. Most importantly it becomes unclear to what extent political subjects shape
discourse(s) or are delimited by their location within discourse(s). This issue is

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

203

particularly crucial when particular ways of arguing for a reform proposal are
supported.
For example, Kantola and Squires offer a sophisticated historical analysis of the
ways in which prostitution has been characterized as a problem in public/political
debate in Britain, contrasting these with Joyce Outshoorns description of the
characterization of prostitution in The Netherlands (Kantola and Squires 2004;
Outshoorn 2004). They show how community groups and public officials in the
United Kingdom have constituted prostitution as a public nuisance problem, and
how recently the discovery of trafficking has strengthened a moral order
discourse. Their major concern is that a sex work discourse, which they see as
producing useful policy options in The Netherlands, is weak in Britain. As a result
they recommend strengthening the sex work discourse in Britain in order to improve
the lot of British prostitutes in some very practical ways (Kantola and Squires
2004:96).
While the Kantola and Squires article is extremely useful as a way of focusing
attention on potential reform strategies around prostitution, the implications of
characterizing the different understandings of the problem as discourses need to
be considered. The intent of the article is to suggest to British feminist reformers that
they ought strategically to try to change the shape of the argument around
prostitution from a moral order or kerb crawler way of arguing to a sex work
way of arguing. However, the discursive construction of particular ways of arguing,
that is, the hegemonic discourses operating in the construction of particular reform
options, is under-analysed. For example, Kantola and Squires note that the sex work
discourse in The Netherlands is individual(ist) and contractarian in character
(2004:84). Here they are offering insights into the systems of thought underpinning
an understanding of prostitution as sex work. However, there is no attempt to reflect
upon the ways in which these hegemonic discourses might delimit and constrain an
agenda built around an understanding of prostitution as sex work.
The specific focus on reform strategies in Kantola and Squires suggests links with
the sociological tradition of framework theory, where there is less interrogation of
the conceptual premises shaping a proposal and more on the strategic shaping of
proposals in order to win converts or gain support. Kantola and Squires state
explicitly that their goal is to evaluate the extent to which UK prostitution
policies could be framed in alternative ways (2004:77; emphasis added). It is
certainly possible to talk about how a discourse frames an issue but when we start
talking about the ability to choose among competing frames, we have left discourse
theory for framework theory.
Sociological framework theory is concerned primarily with understanding the
dynamics of social movement activity. Collective action frames are understood as
intentional shaping of political claims. Some attention is paid to the impact of
ideology, described as collective beliefs, on the frames adopted, but the central
concern is how to negotiate a frame that will work politically. This can and often
does mean forming bridging frames that fit within cultural belief systems. However,
the emphasis remains upon conscious shaping of frames that act to convert others to
your cause and that advance desired political goals (Benford & Snow 2000). In the
words of Triandafyllidou and Fotiou: Frame analysis is concerned with the

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

204

C. Bacchi

negotiation and (re)construction of reality by social/political actors through the use

of symbolic tools (Triandafyllidou & Fotiou 1998:2).
There are connections here with the older theoretical traditions of claims-making
and rhetoric, and with newer studies of norm entrepreneurs (Bacchi 2004; 1999:55
60). As in these cases the emphasis in framework theory is upon the conscious
shaping of political demands to negotiate desired political outcomes. The whole idea
of strategic framing of political claims falls within this tradition (Verloo 2001). The
idea here is that reformers would do well to adapt the language and arguments they
use in order to win supporters and ward off opponents. Thomas Konig identifies an
ambiguity within framework theory on the question of subject agency. He argues
that there is confusion between understanding frames as scaffolds upon which ideas
are built, and a more active description of frames as strategic interventions (Konig
2004). In his view the latter convention has become dominant, belying Goffmans
original interest in frames as internal cognitive maps (Goffman 1974). As in the
discussion of discourse theory, the question of subject agency is central to these
considerations.
In relation to Kantola and Squires, two questions arise from these reflections. To
what extent are feminist reformers directed to reflect upon the interpretive and
conceptual schemas/discourses that underpin the ways in which they themselves
understand the problem of prostitution? And, to what extent are feminist reformers
considered free to pick up and use particular framings of the problem of
prostitution?
As mentioned above, Kantola and Squires wish to strengthen the sex work
discourse in Britain (2004:96). They see feminists as active participants in a framing
contest. However, they do not interrogate the conceptual premises, the underlying
discourses, such as the liberal contractarian elements identified earlier, in the sex
work framework, and how potentially these delimit the understanding of the issue.
Moreover, while the authors are willing to acknowledge the role played by Dutch
versus British cultural and legal contexts in shaping understandings of prostitution,
they still seem to imply that a sex work discourse can be transposed from The
Netherlands to Britain by reformers who see this as a wise strategic move (Kantola
and Squires 2004:92).
There is no doubt that it is useful for reformers to identify political arguments/
frames that may well accelerate the up-take of their reform demands. However, there
is also a need to be wary of placing too much emphasis on the ability to shape useful
frames and too little attention to the shaping impact on reformers themselves of
dominant discourses.
The larger point here is that feminists need to reflect on the discourses, in the sense
of interpretive and conceptual schemas, operating within the ways they frame issues,
and to consider the consequences of working within these discourses. For example,
in some contexts feminist analyses of domestic violence buy into a law and order
framing, with possible serious consequences for how the issues are dealt with (Bacchi
1999:chapter 9). Specifically, a law and order problematization often leads to the
targeting of members of specific groups, such as blacks or working-class people. As
another example, Canadas 1993 guidelines on gender-related persecution employed
the imperial frame of the West and portrayed women who were seeking asylum as

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

205

supplicants seeking to be relieved of the disorder of their world (Razack 1995:49).

While it may not always be possible to avoid employing particular conceptual and
interpretive schemas in the shaping of arguments and analyses, at the very least, the
downside of working within, instead of contesting dominant discourses needs to be
considered. Reflexive introspection on the systems of thought influencing ways of
arguing is necessary to prevent the development of agendas and proposals that may
well help some women at the expense of others.
We return here to the question of the space to move within deeply ingrained
conceptual and interpretive schemas. As Burr explains, the tendency to reify systems
of thought as intractable objects produces a conundrum for those theorists who
adopt a Foucauldian analysis of discourses (Burr 1995:174). Are there techniques or
methods for identifying and contesting discourses that shape our very selfunderstanding and that support the social status quo? Post-structuralist discourse
psychology may well provide some guidance here.
Discourse Analysis in Feminist Theory
Post-structuralist discourse psychologists criticize conventional social psychology for
its focus on internal psychic structures and processes, as if these inhere within
individuals (Burr 1995:177, 159). By contrast they direct attention to the shaping
impact of constitutive discourses, referring to cultural narratives and conceptual
schemas, on political subjects. Hence, they are sensitive to the kinds of insight
generated by an analysis of discourse(s) approach. In this vein Bronwyn Davies
elaborates the political situation of subjects operating within a society suffused by
discourses that define their very being (1994).
At the same time, however, Davies talks about people using discourses. In this
kind of analysis, discourses open up, or make possible, certain subject positions
through and in terms of which we interact with the world (Davies 1994:23). The
goal becomes finding ways to position oneself differently in relation to existing
discourses, which are multiple and contradictory (Davies 1994:26). In this view there
is no outside to discourse, but one can work to identify the discourses within which
one is positioned (subject positions) and use them selectively. This understanding
creates the possibility of theorizing a subject who is simultaneously made a speaking
subject through discourse and who is subjected to those discourses.
Stapleton and Wilson, and Eva Magnusson in this collection, exemplify this
tradition (Stapleton & Wilson 2004). These authors show how those interested in the
constitutive power of discourses continue to find room for subject agency.
Magnusson, a psychologist, is highly sensitive to seeing peoples identity projects as
shaped within webs of culturally produced understandings. She describes people as
active co-producers who use (adopt, transform, resist.) available understandings of
the world and themselves (Magnusson 2005:153163). In Stapleton and Wilson,
gender and nationality are identified as discursive categories that structure the
speakers identities as particular types of people and that interact in mutually
defining ways. However, within these constraints, social actors can achieve and
maintain identity through self-narratives and modes of discursive positioning
(Stapleton & Wilson 2004:45; emphasis added): the speakers actively negotiate

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

206

C. Bacchi

these structures and constraints [i.e. gender and nationality] to produce specific
versions of themselves. So, while identity is necessarily formulated within constraints, contestation takes place: peoples identity constructions are simultaneously shaped by prevailing discourses/cultural meanings, and locally negotiated to
produce specific versions of self (Stapleton & Wilson 2004:46, 48). As in Davies,
discourses in a deeply constitutive sense and subject practices are kept in play.
The implications for political action are critical. Centrally, political subjects are
directed to scrutinize their own discursive positionings. As Davies puts it: The
viewer must catch themselves in the act of seeing in particular ways (1994:456).
Detailed introspection, a consciousness turned upon itself, becomes necessary
political practice in any reform agenda. Identifying and confronting the constitutive
force of discourse(s) leads to informed resistance.
The distinction between Davies focus on detailed introspection and frame
theorists interest in strategic framing of agendas illustrates what is at stake in
different meanings of discourse. The latter see discourse as outside the subject, as
cultural constraints, within which intentional subjects can shape useful political
collective action frames. For the former there is no subject outside discourse and the
subject therefore has work to do on him or herself to avoid falling into discursive
positionings, which may be exploitative of others. This insight highlights the need for
feminist theorists to scrutinize carefully their own discursive positionings and how
these impact on their reform proposals.
At the same time, however, there is also a need to reflect on the sources of
discourse(s) and on the intentional marshalling of discourses for political effect. As
Purvis and Hunt note: One aspect of discourse that has received insufficient
attention is the relation between the conditions of their production and the manner
of their deployment (Purvis & Hunt 1993:486). And, here, it is important to reflect
on the intentional deployment of discourse(s) both by those with greater and by
those with lesser institutional authority.
There is a tendency among some analysis of discourses theorists, specifically
among those interested in the operations of discourses in policy texts, to adopt a
Foucauldian perspective when reflecting on the common people and a more
Marxian perspective when considering the actions of elites (Bacchi 2000). On the one
side, they tend to describe the common people as constituted within discourse and
as lacking power to challenge repressive and dominant meanings. On the other side,
the understanding is that elites generally stand outside these meanings and have the
power to marshal and deploy discourses for instrumental purposes, to advance their
own interests. This kind of analysis makes it very difficult to theorize resistance. For
this reason feminists would do well to develop a dual-focus research agenda that
takes into account both the impact of conceptual and interpretive schemas on the
shape of reform proposals, and the intentional uses of concepts/language by all
political subjects to shape political demands.
A Way Forward: A Dual Problematic and a Dual-Focus Agenda
Potter and Wetherell offer a dual problematic for thinking about the relationship
between political subjects and discourses, in the sense of institutional and culturally

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

207

produced interpretive and conceptual schemas, in their people use discourse and
discourse uses people (Potter & Wetherell 1990:21314). A number of other
authors have put forward similar attempts to capture the necessary dialectic in this
interaction. Terry Threadgold usefully describes the Foucauldian problematic as
twofoldwhat the subject is able to say, and what the subject is permitted to say
(Threadgold 1988:50). Stephen Ball elaborates that discourses are about what can
be said, and thought, but also about who can speak, when, where and with what
authority (Ball 1990:1718). This dual problematic draws attention to both the
power of discourses to delimit the meanings of topics of analysis and the power to
make/deploy discourses. On the power of discourses, Ball explains: discourses
construct certain possibilities for thought. They order and combine words in
particular ways and exclude or displace other combinations. On the power to
make discourse, he states: Meanings thus arise not from language, but from
institutional practices, from power relations, from social positions. Words and
concepts change their meaning and their effects as they are deployed within different
discourses.
This latter focus directs attention to what Foucault calls enunciative modalities
who is speaking a given discourse and the right or privilege of the individual to
speak (Clifford 2001:55). In this vein Vivian Burr makes the point that, once a
discourse becomes available culturally, it can then be appropriated in the interests of
the powerful (Burr 1995:68). At the same time, however, it is important not to lose
sight of the fact that at times less dominant political actors actively deploy concepts for
political purposes. This, of course, is where framework theory, discussed above, comes
into its ownexamining precisely how social movement actors manoeuvre within
discursive limits to shape issues in ways that advance their specific political projects.
To address adequately the dual problematic within discourse theorywhat the
subject is able to say and what the subject is permitted to saya dual-focus research
agenda would identify both the ways in which interpretive and conceptual schemas
delimit understandings, and the politics involved in the intentional deployment of
concepts and categories to achieve specific political goals (Bacchi 1999; 1996). We
need attention both to the ways in which we are all in discourses, understood as
institutionally supported and culturally influenced interpretive and conceptual
schemas and signs, and to the active deployment of language, including concepts and
categories, for political purposes.
The first part of this agenda involves attending to the discourses within which we
operate. For feminist activists this means scrutinizing the conceptual bases of reform
proposals, such as the value connected to paid labour in Western industrialized
countries or the deeply ingrained character of equal opportunity premises (see
Bacchi 2004). This kind of reflexive scrutiny requires committed attempts to draw in
a wide variety of womens voices in order to lessen the chances of adopting takenfor-granted cultural and class-based presumptions in ones analyses.3 The second
part of the agenda addresses the deliberate deployment of concepts and categories
both by those with greater and by those with lesser institutional power to advance
specific political projects. This dual-focus research agenda builds upon the idea in
post-structuralist discourse psychology that people can use discourse(s) to particular
effect, while hanging on to its insights into subjectification.

208

C. Bacchi

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

In clarifying the distinction between these two analytical projects the goal is not to
suggest that they should be kept separate, but that understanding them as two
analytical perspectives is a first step to considering how they can be combined. Both
aspects need to be included in any attempt to come to terms with the complexity of
feminist activism. That is, while it is clearly crucial to pay due heed to the intentional
shaping of strategic frames, this task needs to be accompanied by critical
introspection on the conceptual and interpretive premises underpinning these frames
(Verloo 2001). Important insights into limitations imposed by our own subject
positionings are lost if only the first of these projects is pursued. I offer the concept
of reflexive framing as a way of thinking about the necessary blending of internal
scrutiny of reform objectives with the pragmatic shaping of reform proposals.
Conclusion
Many feminist engagements with discourse theory tend to fall into two traditions,
discourse analysis in the conversation analysis vein, and the analysis of discourses,
examining the operation of discourse(s) within texts. This is unsurprising given their
disciplinary training. Among the latter group there is an increasing tendency to use
the term discourse(s) as shorthand for ways of arguing, without due reflection on the
impact of hegemonic discourses on feminist reform strategies. On the other side a
usable discourse theory must acknowledge the status of subjects as discursively
active (Smith 1999:4). A dual-focus agenda that blends the insights of poststructuralist discourse psychology, critical discourse theory and framework theory,
offers a way forward here. This agenda calls for reflection both on the discourses
within which we operate, and examination of the active deployment of concepts and
categories for political purposes. Feminist political science stands to benefit from
adopting such a cross-disciplinary approach to discourse theory.
Notes
1

I place the term agency in scare quotes because some theorists interested in questions about this topic
argue that the whole meaning of agency needs to be rethought.
2
I place the term Foucauldian in scare quotes because of R. Keith Sawyers (2002) fine paper
challenging the common association of this meaning of discourse with Foucault.
3
In my own work (1999), which examines competing problem representations in some central areas of
womens policy, I was often kept honest through reading analyses from feminists and women outside
my perspective. This, I suggest, is necessary in order to avoid inadvertently buying into discursive
understandings that are limiting and/or exploitative of others.

References
Bacchi, Carol (1996) The Politics of Affirmative Action: Women, Equality and Category Politics (London:
Sage).
Bacchi, Carol (1999) Women, Policy and Politics: the construction of social problems (London: Sage).
Bacchi, Carol (2000) Policy as Discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in
the cultural practices of education, 27(1), pp. 4557.
Bacchi, Carol (2004) Policy and Discourse: Challenging the construction of affirmative action as preferential treatment, Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), pp. 128146.
Ball, Stephen, J. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in policy sociology (New
York: Routledge).

Downloaded by [SENESCYT ] at 12:32 09 December 2013

Subject Agency in Feminist Discourse Methodology

209

Benford, Robert D. & Snow, David A. (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview
and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 611639.
Burr, Vivian (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London and New York: Routledge).
Clifford, Michael (2001) Political Genealogy After Foucault (New York: Routledge).
Davies, Bronwyn (1994) Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice (Geelong: Deakin University).
Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews 197277, C. Gordon (Ed.) (Brighton:
Harvester).
Goffman, Erving (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (New York: Harper
& Row).
Hollway, Wendy (2001) Gender Difference and the Production of Subjectivity. In: Wetherell, Margaret,
Taylor, Stephanie & Yates, Simeon J. (Eds) Discourse Theory: A Reader (London: Sage).
Kantola, Johanna & Squires, Judith (2004) Discourses Surrounding Prostitution Policies in the UK,
European Journal of Womens Studies, 11(1), pp. 77101.
Konig, Thomas (2004) Frame Analysis: A Primer. Department of Social Sciences: New methods for the
analysis of media content, available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/resources/links/
frames_primer.html (accessed 1/4/05).
Mills, Sara (1997) Discourse (New York: Routledge).
Outshoorn, Joyce (2004) Voluntary and Forced Prostitution: The Realistic Approach of the Netherlands.
In: Outshoorn, Joyce (Ed.) The Politics of Prostitution: Womens Movements, Democratic States and
the Globalisation of Sex Commerce (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Parker, Ian (1990) Discourse: Definitions and Contradictions, Philosophical Psychology, 3(2/3), pp. 189204.
Potter, Jonathan & Wetherell, Margaret (1990) Discourse: Noun, Verb or Social Practice? Philosophical
Psychology, 3(2/3), pp. 205218.
Purvis, T. & Hunt, A. (1993) Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, British
Journal of Sociology, 44, pp. 473499.
Razack, Sherene (1995) Domestic Violence as Gender Persecution: Policing the Borders of Nation, Race
and Gender, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8, pp. 4588.
Roberts, Celia (2004) Sex, Race and Unnatural Difference. Tracking the Chiastic Logic of MenopauseRelated Discourses, European Journal of Womens Studies, 11(1), pp. 2744.
Sawyer, R. Keith (2002) A Discourse on Discourse: An Archeological History of an Intellectual Concept,
Cultural Studies, 16(3), pp. 433456.
Smith, Dorothy (1999) Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press).
Stapleton, Karyn & Wilson, John (2004) Gender, Nationality and Identify: A Discursive Study, European
Journal of Womens Studies, 11(1), pp. 4560.
Threadgold, Terry (1988) Language and gender, Australian Feminist Studies, 6, pp. 4170.
Triandafyllidou, A. & Fotiou, A. (1998) Sustainability and Modernity in the European Union: A Frame
Theory Approach to Policy-Making, Sociological Research Online, 3(1), available at: http://
www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/1/2.html (accessed 20 January 2005).
Verloo, Mieke (2001) Another Velvet Revolution? Gender Mainstreaming and the Politics of Implementation, IWM Working Paper No. 5 (Vienna: IWM).
Wetherell, Margaret (2001) Debates in Discourse Research, in: Wetherell, Margaret, Taylor, Stephanie &
Yates, Simeon J. (Eds) Discourse Theory: A Reader (London: Sage).

Carol Bacchi is Professor of Politics, School of History and Politics, University of

Adelaide, South Australia. Her research interests include feminist political theory,
policy theory, citizenship and embodiment. Among her recent publications are:
Arguing for and against Quotas: Theoretical Issues, in: Dahlerup, Drude (Ed.) Gender
Quotas in Politicsa Key to Equality? and Policy, in: Essed, Philomena; Goldberg,
David & Koboyashi, Audrey (Eds.) A Companion to Gender Studies and Policy and
Discourse: Challenging the Construction of Affirmative Action as Preferential
Treatment, in: Journal of European Public Policy, 01/04.