Back to “Michel Foucault” Homepage
Foucault and Narrative Transformation
The idea of taking Foucault’s theories and using them to approach complex issues isn’t unique. Already, we’ve discussed in this rabbit hole how Foucault defines discourse as conversation that builds and shapes knowledge. Moreover, we’ve begun to understand how power/knowledge is associated with discourse.
In creating what individuals consider as truths, or in setting norms, discourse theory describes how the ability to affect knowledge isn’t equally distributed amongst everyone.
Going (way) back to the bike example from part one, using the phrase “car supremacy” reveals how discourses about bicycle safety are often largely driven by groups concerned about damage to cars—for example, people who have cars, or car dealerships. As a result, a passionate bicyclist may angrily point out that while bicyclists have to take additional safety measures in order to assure their own safety, cars and their drivers aren’t subjected to such treatment. Here, as per discourse theory, cars have the upper hand—more power—and thus, have a heightened ability to define what counts as “correct” knowledge.
 | When it comes to bike safety, who holds the most responsibility? Who has the power to lay the blame in the first place? |  |
And so, there’s more to the story than there initially seems. What begins as something well-intentioned ends as something well-intentioned, but what’s discomforting is how much of this discourse process is skewed towards one perspective. In a way, discourse theory dissects how discursive events (re)shape real-life situations. This is, ultimately, the stuff of narrative transformation.
Read more about the concept of “car supremacy” put forward by urban peacebuilding expert Ashton Rohmer.
At TNT Lab, we think of narrative transformation as discovering the multiplicity of perspectives behind the stories we tell and live. Asking the question “What’s the story here?” and considering how that story is told from different perspectives is what narrative transformation is all about.
And a “story” isn’t synonymous with a fairy tale or fiction—it’s something very real that helps us understand the reasoning behind people’s actions and history. Behind this process of narrative transformation is intentionality.
In her book Speaking of Violence: The Politics and Poetics of Narrative in Conflict Resolution, Sara Cobb, a professor emerita at the Carter School, builds a picture of how narrative transformation strives to capture all of a person’s humanity by “appreciating the complexity and beauty of people” (p. 284). This appreciation is especially essential in situations of conflict, where overly simplified stories are especially easy to tell.
So, when we think back on the bicycle example, increasing the number of perspectives to the story—and legitimating those perspectives as having “correct” knowledge—is one way to aid in narrative transformation toward better outcomes for all people involved.
One way to actively carry out this work is by using Foucault’s ideas about discourse to analyze real-world situations. Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) offers a specialized inquiry into language, examining how language can be used to guide discourses and legitimize or disrupt ongoing power dynamics. When looking at a particular piece of discourse using FDA, some questions you could ask include:
- Who or what is the voice behind this statement?
- What is this statement not saying? What is expressed implicitly?
- What are the assumptions of this statement?
- What evidence is offered in this statement?
This can all sound very abstract, so let’s go through an example with the following statement:
“An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
Usually, FDA is used in more political contexts, but I’m partial to using a phrase that could be common to you (it is to me!) and has a little bit of play to it.
So, examining the language of the statement, I see that this statement has a number of assumptions to it, like 1) avoiding the doctor is a good thing, and 2) apples are good for you, implicitly saying that . . .
Healthiness is an ideal standard!
There’s not really room to negate this claim—no part of this statement asks for your opinion or thoughts. There is also confidence in the validity of the claim, even though there is no evidence or proof offered up.
With these things in mind, we can see that this suggestion to “eat an apple -> avoid unnecessary checkups at the doctors -> maintain good health” pushes forward the norm of maintaining a healthy routine in your daily life.
Like the bike example, this expression about apples isn’t necessarily the most mind-blowing, but its simplicity helps get the point across! “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” has a compelling story of caution and habits that connect what you eat to how healthy you are, which becomes more apparent when we break down how this story is told; and by breaking down how stories or perspectives are told with Foucauldian discourse analysis, we have a new method of transforming narratives, which in turn gives us more options when it comes to discerning what kinds of knowledge are legitimate and considering how that knowledge shapes real-life experiences.
A field that Foucualdian thought and narrative transformation can easily be applied to is peace and conflict studies, where critical approaches to discourse, power, knowledge, and narrative act as helpful tools for breaking down the origins and structures of violence and ideating processes for sustainable peace and equity. By lending a critical eye to this field of study, these processes of thinking move beyond purely theoretical frameworks to the application of these ideas toward shaping a better world.
As such, narrative transformation isn’t just about analyzing the power dynamics of particular stories and discourses; it’s also about actively reshaping those discourses and stories together. As Cobb writes:
In narrative transformation, much of the conversation is about the meaning of the signals, what they used to mean, what they mean now, and what they could mean—it is a process of metacommunication about the relationship. It is, from this perspective, activity, engagement, with the meaning of meaning. What results from metacommunicative practices is not just new meaning—it is the experience of being active and agentic, creating the meaning about the meaning. It is agency in its purest form.
Sara Cobb, Speaking of Violence, 2013, p. 281
Where to Next?
Foucault’s Theories of Discourse and Power
A Journey into Foucault’s Ideas