Words do not merely describe the world—they shape it. This insight lies at the heart of Michel Foucault’s radical rethinking of discourse. Far from seeing language as a neutral medium of communication, Foucault casts discourse as a system of power and knowledge that governs what can be said, by whom, and with what consequences.
In this view, discourse is not just about talking; it is about constructing reality itself.
What Is Discourse?
In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault defines discourse as a “group of statements which provide a language for talking about—a way of representing—the knowledge about a particular topic at a particular historical moment.” But these are not just innocent collections of facts or expressions. Discourse produces the objects it claims to describe.
Take sexuality, for example. It is not simply a biological drive or private behavior. In the Victorian era, Foucault notes, the medical, legal, and religious discourses around sexuality exploded—not to repress it, but to classify, categorize, and normalize it. These discourses shaped how people understood themselves and others. The “homosexual” was not merely discovered; he was invented.
Discourse Creates Social Roles
One of Foucault’s most famous concepts is that of the power/knowledge nexus: the idea that knowledge is never neutral and is always entangled with power. When a doctor diagnoses a patient, or a judge declares a verdict, their words are not mere observations—they create subjects and consequences. The diagnosis transforms a person into a patient. The verdict transforms a person into a criminal.
Legal discourse is perhaps the clearest example of language as reality-maker. The courtroom is a space where carefully structured speech acts determine freedom, guilt, and even life or death. A citizen becomes an “offender,” not because of some intrinsic quality, but because a particular discourse has said so—and with the institutional power to enforce that label.
From Medicine to Media
Medical discourse similarly defines what it means to be “healthy” or “sick.” These categories shift over time—consider how homosexuality was once pathologized as a mental disorder. Today, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is widely recognized, but only after decades of discursive construction and contestation.
In the digital age, media discourse functions at a breathtaking speed and scale. News cycles, social media trends, and influencer commentary shape not just public opinion, but our very sense of what events and issues are real or important. When a platform’s algorithm privileges certain voices, it structures the discourse—and thus, the reality we experience.
Discourse and Resistance
Yet discourse is not totalitarian. It is not a monolith. Where there is power, there is also resistance. Alternative discourses can challenge dominant narratives. Grassroots activism, critical scholarship, and subcultures all serve to create competing ways of speaking—and therefore, being.
The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, shifted public discourse around policing, race, and justice. It introduced new frames, terms, and data into the mainstream conversation. This is not just rhetorical—it reshaped policy debates and public consciousness.
Seeing the Water We Swim In
Foucault’s work on discourse does not ask us to give up on truth or meaning. Instead, it asks us to become more critical of how certain “truths” come to dominate. Whose voices are heard? Which frameworks are seen as “common sense”? What possibilities are excluded before we even speak?
To analyze discourse is to see the water we swim in—and to realize that it, too, can be changed.
see also: technologies of power.
