Commanding obedience : a discursive analysis of the meaning of ownership within the European neighbourhood policy

(1)

2016

Hendrik Ike

100943555

The EU and it’s immediate neighbours: practices in policy-making and policies in practice 7324U209ZY Dr. Andrey Demidov a.demidov@uva.nl Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, B 9.15

Commanding Obedience: A

discursive analysis of the meaning

of ownership within the European

Neighbourhood Policy

(2)

~ 1 ~

Abstract:

The picture depicted on the title page of this thesis is by artist William-Adolphe Bouguereau, entitled ‘The Motherland’. Painted in 1883, it portrays the matronly figure of France being suckled by her colonial offspring. It has since become a much lauded representation of postcolonial dubiety in how Europe recognizes its imperial past. This thesis argues that Europe, in the current form of the EU, still exercises power over its neighbours through language, in a nuanced, discursive fashion.

This thesis conducts a discourse analysis of the meaning of enhanced ownership within the most recent European Neighbourhood Policy review of November 2015. It is argued that such an investigation of the meaning of ownership is increasingly necessary due to the distinctly sparse literature relating to ownership as a concept within the ENP. Previous literature has only interpreted ownership through its efficiency as a policy tool, rather than grasp at its ontological foundations and overall meaning. After a discussion of history, theory and subsequent research design, a Foucauldian discourse analysis is conducted from both an archaeological and genealogical perspective which uses qualitative data collected from interviews, speeches and policy documents. It is concluded that ownership within the ENP is a situated in an asymmetrical, hierarchic, and exclusionary discourse stemming from the European Commission, which does not only ignore the perspectives of partner countries, but also imposes within the discourse a hegemonic power relation. As a result, it is recommended that the European Commission, and EU in general, should be more reflective of how it introduces new concepts into its surrounding neighbourhood.

(3)

~ 2 ~

List of abbreviations

DG Directorate General

DG NEAR Directorate General: Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations

EC European Commission

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EU European Union

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

List of tables and figures

Table 1. – Examples of Foucauldian Discursive Codes ... 21

Table 2. – Types of Reasoning ... 23

Table 3. – The Meanings of Institutional Definitions of Ownership ... 28

Table 4. – Frequency of Ownership Usage in Institutional Documentation ... 32

Table 5. – Chronological Observance of Ownership Meaning over Time ... 33

Table 6. – ENP Review Discursive Rules ... 36

Table 7. – Academic Ownership Efficiency Discourses ... 38

Table 8. – Mogherini & Hahn (i) Discursive Rules ... 45

Table 9. – Mogherini & Hahn (ii) Discursive Rules ... 47

Table 10. – DG NEAR Unit A Discursive Rules ... 51

Table 11. – DG NEAR Unit B Discursive Rules ... 52

Table 12. – DG NEAR Unit D Discursive Rules ... 54

(5)

~ 4 ~

Chapter 1: An Introduction to Ownership

1.1 Why study ownership?

This introductory section will introduce the concept of ownership and its placement within the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). It will also outline why studying the introduction of enhanced ownership is a vital area of research for both the academia and policy-makers.

The European Union currently faces abounding challenges and worriment from beyond its borders. Supplanting the aspirational heydays of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the EU now faces uphill-struggles within its neighbourhood that have culminated from a distinct lack of effective structural foreign policy (Keukeleire & Delreux, 2014: 272). This can be observed in a number of interwoven public dilemmas; the recent migrant crisis, inherent visa allocation confusion, or more topical security challenges. These issues convey not just a transnational but also transregional permeation at an unprecedented level. If methods to enforce structural foreign policy have hitherto been fruitless, then understanding how such structural approaches are designed oblige no small measure of deconstruction. It is necessary then to identify the most salient European policy tool in order to establish a useful inquiry.

A central pillar of the European Union’s foreign relations with countries within its immediate neighbourhood is the European Neighbourhood Policy. The most recent review of this policy took place in November 2015 (European Commission, 2015). The EC proclaims to employ various instruments and approaches within this text that are designed to form better relations with the neighbourhood or ‘partner countries.’ Explicitly stated within the introductory pages of the November 18 revision is;

‘Differentiation and greater mutual co-ownership will be the hallmark of the new ENP, recognising that not all partners aspire to EU rules and standards, and reflecting the wishes of each country concerning the nature and focus of its partnership with the EU.’ (European Commission, 2015: 2).

Ownership (sometimes termed as co-ownership) has become more apparent in previous ENP revisions yet as of last year it has become most prevalent within ENP discourse. In 2015 ownership was mentioned 11 times in associated institutional documentation (European Commission, 2015) , (European Commission SWD, 2015), whereas in previous years’ revisions and working documents the count is relatively

(6)

~ 5 ~

lower (See Table 4. in section 3.3). Within all reviews and working documents however the EC refrains from defining what ‘increased ownership’ or ‘greater mutual ownership’ actually means. It becomes appropriate therefore to look for explanations of ownership within academic fields. When looking at ownership within academia it becomes immediately clear that it is an underdeveloped topic of literature, especially with regards to the European Neighbourhood Policy. There is also a split between scholars on how effective ownership is in improving Europe’s relations with its neighbours (See section 1.2). The majority of literature regarding the topic is also Euro-centric and does not often employ alternative viewpoints (i.e. from representatives of the Non-EU membership countries). These observations satisfy reflections thus-far that the overall understanding of ownership from both institutional and academic fields is underdeveloped.

One characteristic of investigating ownership is the inherent novelty of the concept. As will be examined within the next literature review section, greater ownership as a policy tool is a novel concept both in theory and in practice. This novelty makes any investigation particularly attractive when uncovering revelations in the field. As one interviewee responded when asked of his opinion of the perceived effectiveness of technically his own policy; ‘Of course, it is a bit too early to tell.’ (DG NEAR, Unit B Interview: 2016). This gives added weight to the value of research in both academic circles and for wider populations at large, as understanding what the actual meaning of ownership is could potentially alter the effectiveness of the EU’s relations with its partners and subsequently the lives of European and ‘Neighbourhood’ citizens. In turn, understanding the meaning of this policy formation can serve as an exhortation for other policy areas of the EU which have thus-far been perceived as inefficient or simply bad.

This section has argued that the EU’s designs of structural foreign policy in its immediate neighbourhood is associated with multiple challenges and constraints (Comelli, 2004: 107). It has also identified a significant change within the EU’s premier neighbourhood instrument, the ENP, being enhanced ownership. The reason to study the meaning of such a change has also been determined (though this reason will be expanded when justifying the central research question).

(7)

~ 6 ~ Thesis structure and method

The following structure of this thesis will be conducted as follows; firstly, there will be a necessary to turn to the literature regarding ownership and an identification made of how scholars understand it. This will be followed by a presentation the research question(s). A secondary chapter will set about the appropriate theory in order to answer the research question, social constructivism and sociological intuitionalism. From here, a post-structural analysis brings us to Michel Foucault, whose approach to discourse and theoretical explanations of power provide the fundamental elements of the research design, which will be subsequently described, including the choice of reasoning and data collection methods, reliability and validity.

This thesis will then conduct a Foucauldian discourse analysis within three chapters which concentrate on the meaning of ownership from an i) historical institutional perspective, which pertains to a Foucauldian archaeological approach, ii) an academic perspective which uses more genealogical elements, and through iii) current policy makers, which identifies overarching Foucauldian themes in the discourse whilst identifying discursive rules. These three chapters constitute to the overall holistic meaning of ownership becoming clear. The final chapter will then elucidate on this meaning in the conclusion, and in by doing so answer the central research question. A section of reflection is then finally presented.

1.2 A review of the literature on ownership

This section will explore what has been noted within academic literature concerning ownership. The purpose of this is to develop an understanding of how ownership is currently framed within academic circles, which consequentially acquaints the investigation with a pre-determined academic characteristics of ownership going forward. From reviewing what little literature that has so far been conducted on (or at least relatable to) ownership, scholars are thus-far preoccupied with one main questions; how successful it is. Others attempt to define ownership or figure reasons for its original introduction within the ENP, but with little substantiation or vigour.

On chasing definitions

A major gap in the current academic sphere is a lack of common definition of ownership. In a similar manner to Europeanisation, definitions of the concept are subjective to the author. Unlike Europeanisation however, there are definitions that seem to encompass most of the characteristics that the majority (but not all of) of scholars discuss. Some scholars of the field from research networks, such as

(8)

~ 7 ~

EuroMeSCo, and by individuals scholars such as Johansson-Nogués, argue that ownership’s roots can be found in early experimental development policy at a grassroots level (Aliboni et al., 2006). Johansson-Nogués defines ownership as a ‘partnership is struck between donor and local actors enabling joint ownership over resources or project management.’ (Johansson- Nogués, 2008: 23). The description of what essentially is ‘being owned’ nonetheless remains vague. A Commission official quoted by Judith Kelly has stated that ‘the new policy is that the overall level of shared values will affect the degree to which ambitions are shared’ (Kelly, 2006: 36). A condensed observation of ownership then, is that it encourages an increase in shared values.

Aliboni offers first offers a another definition of ownership in the context of the ‘Mediterranean-Arab’ countries involved in the ENP. He defines ownership as something that results in ‘more commitment once a joint decision is made, yet less so when it comes to taking common decisions.’ (Aliboni, 2005: 12). This concept elucidates to a possible challenge of introducing ownership, and deserves subsequent unpacking. This paradox between less decision-making accountability versus more commitment to adopted joint decisions is the first instance in the literature where a scholar argues that easier implementation is a strength of the ownership concept, whereas the accountability of decisions is a weakness. Note however how Aliboni cannot delink his definition of ownership to how efficient it is as a foreign policy tool. This relates to the larger, second focus of academics when regarding ownership.

On chasing efficiency

As was mentioned in the previous section, there is a split between scholars on how effective ownership is in improving Europe’s relations with its neighbours. To start at a very basic level, the literature concerning ownership in this context is essentially split between two groups of scholars; those who think that it is a useful alternative to conditionality and hierarchal governance, even if it is flawed, and those who argue that it is a misguided and inefficient policy tool that creates or catalyses more problems than it solves, regardless of the ‘good intention’.

Scholars such as Sandra Lavenex have pointed out that the ENP is structurally hindered by a lack of effective flexible horizontal integrations between the EU and its partners. Arguing that network governance should be integrated into the ENP as an alternative to the inconsistent normative conditions applied to ENP countries, she argues that such a concept is less constitutional and asymmetrical in nature and institutional members are equal in their cooperation. This mirrors a new emphasis of

(9)

~ 8 ~

the November 2015 revision of the ENP communication which has stressed the importance of enhanced ownership between the EU and respective ENP countries; ‘ownership by both partners and EU Member States needs to be stepped up; that cooperation should be given a tighter, more relevant focus; and that greater flexibility must be sought to enable the EU and its partners to respond to ever changing needs and circumstances.’ (European Commission: 2015). Lavenex therefore frames ownership as an example of successful network governance; ‘Qualified personnel and compatible expertise are thus key to the principle of ‘co-ownership’. In both cases, that is, when EU actors exploit or instrumentalize networks to compensate for lack of leverage.’ (Lavenex, 2008: 946)., rather than studying ownership as a policy tool in itself. It is, in her view, a product of good governance.

Balfour has noted that ownership has been ‘extremely limited’ thus far and ‘At stake in strengthening co-ownership are the asymmetry of relations between the two shores and the ability of the EU to promote those international principles.’(Balfour: 2009: 104). Balfour is arguing that the ENP is promoting ownership as a principle. Corresponding institutions such as the Union for the Mediterranean have thus far been in urgent need of increased ownership and subsequent cooperation, an issue that scholars such as Lavenex and Schimmelfenning frame once again in the ‘success of network’ mode; ‘network qualities such as deliberative processes, co-ownership, and density of interaction are likely to enhance the legitimacy of rules and are thus conducive to their expansion’ (Lavanex & Schimmelfenning, 2009: 798).

Other scholars relate ownerships efficiency with how well it can be implemented. Gillespie for example hypothesises earlier in his work that ‘ownership…did empower some southern elite actors, but proved problematic as a means of relaunching Euro-Mediterranean multilateralism. Indeed, it rendered the structures of cooperation much more vulnerable to damaging fallout from conflicts and tensions around the Mediterranean.’ (Gillespie, 2013: 179). Gillespie works on two themes here that have already been observed. Firstly, he is linking ownership negatively to structural imbalances, a now accepted signpost of the ENP’s failings. Secondly, it is also related to how useful it is as a policy tool i.e. concentrating only on its efficiency.

Browning and Joenniemi view ownership as something that is only accepted or neglected by partner countries, depending on trust. They however pass comment that overall, concepts such as ownership ‘ultimately are widely seen to add up to little’ in the eyes of policy-makers. (Browning & Joenniemi, 2008: 533). This is the first

(10)

~ 9 ~

example of scholars examining the value of ownership to policy-makers, even if it constitutes at most a passing remark.

The usefulness of ownership as a policy tool is also developed by a majority of sources. Apart from scholars who make it the central focus of their work (Such as Gillespie), the majority of the academic field employs ownership as little more than either a welcome development or an unwelcome nuisance. A second level of interpretation is that scholars are primarily focused on challenges facing the implementation of ownership. Browning and Joenniemi for example argue that it is only implemented in specific Action Plans where the EC deems it necessary to do so (ibid.). Meanwhile, Del Sarto and Schumacher bring about the view that implementation is difficult because members are more traditionally accustomed to the positive conditionality concept thanks to the Barcelona Process (Del Sarto & Schumacher, 2005: 29). Aliboni is concentrating on whether ease of implementation is an actual strength of ownership, not a weakness. Whilst all of these investigations deserve attention, it soon becomes obvious that focusing on the overall efficiency of ownership receives a disproportionate amount of focus.

On chasing reasons

The literature does comment on reasons for the introduction of ownership within the ENP. A move away from the positive conditionality (Del Sarto, & Schumacher, 2005: 29), the pursuit of further multilateralism (Kelly, 2006: 39), asymmetric perceptions (Del Sarto, Schumacher, & Lavanex), escaping the weaknesses of the Barcelona Process (Del Sarto & Schumacher, 2005: 29), (Pardo, 2004: 733) and even to quell notions of post-colonialism (Balfour, 2009: 99). These are all well-constructed arguments that are understandable and subject to criticism individually. However the current literature is very Euro-centric and only attempts to analyse the successes or failures of ownership in a reflective state. It also does not account for the internal dynamics of institutions. The inclusion of ownership as a more important principal within the ENP review would have been a result of a EC decision. Decisions at these levels are taken by bureaucratic and political elites. As a result, there must have been a decision made within an institutional context that needs analysing. How are the people there making these decisions?

What does the positioning of the literature tell us?

As has already been outlined in the introduction to this section, it is clear that the academic field currently approaches ownership in three ways. The most important and developed area of academia focuses on its efficiency as a policy tool. The two other

(11)

~ 10 ~

areas, which are less developed (and never expanded upon empirically), consider the reasons for the introduction of ownership within the ENP (before it was enhanced in 2015) and also its definition. Strikingly, ownership has only been the actual subject of only one academic research paper (Gillespie, R. (2013). The challenge of co-ownership in the Euro-Mediterranean space. Geopolitics, 18(1), 178-197.) thus far, and this was committed before the EC introduced enhanced ownership in 2015.

1.3 Research questions

This smaller section will synthesise the observations and shortcomings of contemporary literature (what has and hasn’t been said) with the ambitions laid out in the introduction section. From this, a central research question will be posed and any other relatable queries will be presented.

As elucidated in section 1.1, the EU’s shortcomings within its immediate neighbourhood stem from a lack of structured foreign policy (Keukeleire & Delreux, 2014: 272). The academic field has only concentrated on the efficiency of ownership as a policy tool, with small references to its definition and meanings for introduction in earlier periods. What these observations do not cover however is a wider consideration of what the introduction of enhanced ownership actually means. A level of abstraction is missing. There is no deliberation on whether the input of new structural designs and concepts is the right way to treat an apparent ailing policy. In order to form a better understanding of the problems within the ENP and the EU’s approach to the neighbourhood in general, a critical deconstruction of concepts such as ownership is warranted. This leads to a simple central research question;

What is the meaning of enhanced ownership within the latest European Neighbourhood Policy review?

With this question, the level of abstraction mentioned above may be sought. It is also anticipated that a secondary question, being how was it introduced, may be tacitly answered through the gathering of simple procedural evidence within analytical sections, however it is not the fundamental aim of this thesis to answer that question. The next chapter will concentrate on pin-pointing the correct theoretical approach, and subsequent research design required in order to answer the central research question above.

(12)

~ 11 ~

Chapter 2: Theory and Research Design

This chapter will hone down a broader theoretical outlook to arrive at a base of social constructivism and sociological-institutionalism. From there Foucault’s concepts are elaborated and his discursive approach is described. Past scholarly work utilising the same research design is then examined, before the research design and data collection methods are laid out.

2.1 Arriving to social constructions

Whilst the foundations for the inclusion of ownership may be the result of some serious practical issues, its introduction into policy and the fact that ownership is such a subjective term implies that such a concept should be approached using a combination of institutional and constructivist theory. The EC is split into directorate generals (or DGs) that are responsible for initiating and monitoring different policy areas. The DG responsible for the ENP is the DG for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (also known as DG NEAR). Thus, in order to develop an understanding of the meaning of enhanced ownership in the ENP, a social-constructivist institutional perspective deserves qualification.

The interpretivist approach (first adequately developed by German sociologist Max Weber) stresses that an adherence to facts and observations alone is limiting as it does not fully account for understanding subjective experiences. These subjective experiences open up a large amount of variables in understanding concepts such as ownership, and is not limited to the interpretation of research by the reader. How policy-makers view ownership and in turn how they understand the meaning of ownership is a result of subjective experiences which all individuals interpret differently. It is therefore a social-construction, and so the overarching theory of social-constructivism needs to be examined. First coined by Berger and Luckmann in their 1966 book ‘The Social Construction of Reality’, social-constructivism places emphasis on the assumption that individuals working together in a system become aware of each other’s actions / behaviour, and this reciprocates into their own roles and behaviour through their conceptions of others. To emphasise the importance of their ideas, Burger and Luckmann assert that ‘everyone in society participates in its knowledge in one way or another. Put differently, only a few are concerned with the theoretical interpretation of the world, but everybody lives in a world of some sort.’ (1966). To bring this theory onto more practical ground when understanding institutions, ‘the agents in any social system are not autonomous but, rather, are embedded in social structures of shared norms that do much to define their interests

(13)

~ 12 ~

and identities.’ (Duffield, 2001: 112.). These quotes highlight the limitations of viewing institutions in a realist sense, where the internal actor’s actions are viewed as little more than the collective actions of organs designed to exercise the will of a sovereign state.

Whilst social-constructivism provides the theoretical base for understanding the relevance for studying actors within institutions, a subsequent institutionalist theory is needed to develop understanding of the factors that come into play when understanding the internal dynamics of an institution such as DG NEAR. Sociological-institutionalism is pre-disposed to aid this challenge as it provides an understanding of institutions which is markedly different to Rational Choice Institutionalism. Antje Wiener, who has worked substantially on the interdisciplinary scholarship between constructivist political science and organisational sociology, argues that older approaches such as RCI have created an ‘observation that many analyses of institutions tend to be ‘under socialised in the sense that they pay insufficient attention to the ways in which actors in world politics are socially constructed’ (Weiner, 2006). Tanja Börzel eloquently develops these aspects to describe what sociological institutionalism truly tells us about the dynamics of actors;

‘Unlike its rationalist counterpart, sociological-institutionalism draws on a normative logic of appropriateness, which argues that actors are guided by collectively shared understandings of what constitutes proper, socially accepted behaviour.’ (Börzel, 2011: 396.)

Of course, what constitutes proper socially accepted behaviour can be shared but it is also subjective to individuals. Relating to ownership, a relationship may be drawn between this investigation’s research question(s) and the factors which affect the behaviour of individuals in institutions. The reasons for the inclusion of more ownership within the ENP from an institutional angle, and what ownership means to different individuals and sections within the directorate, can inform in the best manner what ownership means and how it was formed.

2.2 Introducing post-structuralism and Foucault

Within this section the layout of how to link the above theory to the grander research design will be conducted. This begins with linking the rise of Foucault from post-structuralism.

Wagenaar, a key scholar concerned with the role of dialogue in policy analysis, states that structuralist theory of the post-war period emerged as a criticism of existential assumptions that the individual experience is paramount, and that life is

(14)

~ 13 ~

experienced through larger overarching systems and structures. Relating this criticism to hermeneutics (the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation of linguistic/literary texts), Wagenaar states, ‘In a nutshell, one could say that in hermeneutic policy interpretation the world is mediated by language, while in discursive approaches it is produced by it.’ (Wagenaar, 2011: 107). In doing so, a structuralist interpretation of discourse ‘holds that the host of experience and meaning is not the individual but the architecture of symbolic-linguistic systems.’ (ibid: 108). This goes against conventional political theory which argues that the human experience is either a product of an autonomous individual’s subjective experience, or a product of causes, such as the economy, culture, religion, and the institutions associated with them. (ibid: 108).

Structuralists are keen to argue that no meaning / ideas exist prior to a system of signs. (ibid: 108). To use prehistory as an example, a structuralist argument is that before cave paintings depicted pre-historic man hunting animals, the act of hunting held no meaning in their society. Nor would our current perception of these acts have meaning. As a result, with this meaning, we can link the development of say a language or signs to a cultural construction or structure, which directly effects our behaviour.

The split between structuralism and post-structuralism emerged however due to more progressive theorists arguing that this structures are not simply built and adhered to, but also susceptible to context and cultures across different groups, and so, constantly evolve in an organic fashion rather than a pre-determined one. In criticising a key structural theorist, Wagenaar identifies that ‘although Saussure (A famous Swiss linguist who developed structural theory) did pay attention to language use, he failed to establish a convincing conceptual connection between the structure of the language system, on the one hand, and the give-and-take of language-in-action, on the other hand.’ (ibid: 110). Wagenaar is essentially argueing that Saussure is ignoring the varying inferences, indications, and undertones of different language groups. ‘He saw an essential symbolic order, an underlying system of rules, that makes individual language use possible.’ (ibid: 110). This is therefore a concentration of form over substance.

‘What Saussure failed to see – and Derrida pointed out – was that the system of differences that allegedly generates semantic meaning is not closed but instead contains a remarkable amount of slippage. Differences in the symbolic order do not just sit there waiting to be activated; they must be actively sought out and tested for their relevance or usability in a particular situation at hand.’ (ibid: 110).

(15)

~ 14 ~

From this lack of insight the first steps towards post-structuralism can be made - where we experience that the ‘opening up of the formal symbolic order of differences and oppositions points toward a theory of discourse that provides an alternative to hermeneutic meaning.’ (ibid: 110). This results in the introduction of agency and context within discursive structures.

‘Individuals are not wholly autonomous but at least partly determined by preexisting symbolic-linguistic structures.’ This ‘conceptualization of discourse offers a range of new insights on key issues in political thought, such as power, freedom, governance, state and public policy.’ (ibid: 110).

Through the work of postructuralists such as Foucault, Laclau and Mouffe, we have a ‘conception of discourse as a symbolic structure made up of contrasts and opposites, which simultaneously define the individual agent yet allow for a certain openness to the challenges and dilemmas of everyday reality’ (ibid: 111). This almost binary interpretation of discourse is a hallmark of Foucault, who argues that all discourse has an inclusive / exclusive dichotomy at play.

But how does post-structuralism relate to analysing policy? Fischer and Gottweis argue that a post-structuralist approach to policy analysis ‘assumes that even the most sedimented practices, objects, and categories of policy making are ambiguous and radically contingent entities. Whose meaning can be articulated in various ways by differently positioned social actors.’ (Fischer & Gottweis, 2012: 307). This emphasis on the positioning of actors is of relevance to the research design, which investigates the discourses produced by not just high-level representatives but also professionals within sections of DG NEAR. A concise emphasis made by Fischer & Gottweis that ‘Poststructuralist policy analysts also explore the way in which subjects are formed and act in the policy-making process, as well as the wider structures of social relations within which subjects operate.’ (ibid: 307) also reasserts the research design as the correct course of action when investigating the subjects of concept introduction within institutions.

When inspecting discourses within a political context, Fischer & Gottweis make the assertion that discourses ‘are thus finite and contingent constructions, whose production involves the exercise of power, as well as certain forms of exclusion. This means that every discursive structure is uneven and hierarchical.’ (ibid: 307). As the post-structuralist interpretation of discourse involves the exercise of power, it is essential to understand how this power is exercised. In order to do this, the standard bearer who links power to discourse - Michel Foucault – must be examined.

(16)

~ 15 ~ 2.2.1 Foucault

Wagenaar makes the sobering admission that ‘to summarize the relevance of Foucault to interpretive policy analysis is a daunting task.’ (Wagenaar, 2011: 112). This is because Foucault never described himself a methodological process to his analytical technique. Instead ‘he ended up with a conception of discourse that is so concerned with the essential dispersion and contingency of social categories that it self-consciously defies and resists all generalizing summaries.’ (ibid: 112). A Foucauldian analysis is therefore extremely nuanced, and relies upon inspecting discursive data for the phenomena Foucault identified throughout his career.

An aim of this section is to present the techniques of Foucault to the average reader in an accessible way. In response to this statement, it is worth asking a question; through his ‘formidable number of books and collections of articles, course notes, speeches, discussions, and interviews’ (ibid: 112), what was Foucault actually trying to make us understand when it comes to discourse? Foucault argues that discourses inherently create dichotomies, where you have actors and subjects. This is a binary method of thinking, where, through discourse, if statements are made, then someone or something is always excluded. Foucault was interested in ‘serious statements’, statements that ‘are understood by hearers as authoritative or true far beyond the immediate context in which they are uttered.’ (ibid: 115).Therefore, these statements, though reliant on the rules of a context in order to be produced, transcend conventional language and imply that power can be exercised when it permeates into the discourse of a group. In this scenario, such power can be understood to be hegemonic.

Yet this generalisation does not account for deeper explorations of Foucault’s approach. Power can be exercised through different institutions, and importantly, legitamised or delegitamised. Take for instance the subject of mental health, one of Foucault’s favourite areas of study. Comparing the language of mental health in different contexts is illuminating. If a member of a couple in a relationship makes the statement ‘you’re crazy’, it can be taken as ‘harmless, perhaps even playful’ yet if mentioned by a psychiatrist such a statement would have ‘grave consequences.’ (ibid: 115). A difference of meaning in context would not be a good enough explanation according to Foucault. Instead, he asks us to interpret this at a higher level, where ‘certain statements come with generally recognized and accepted truth claims because of their position in a particular institutionalized field of use.’ (ibid: 115). Within these institutionalised fields, there are a sets of rules that depend on the context / locality (take within DG NEAR for example), and the rules (not just the context itself)

(17)

~ 16 ~

therefore dictate what statements hold meaning or not. This link to context and interplay is an example of how Foucault moves away from structuralism, which focuses on mapping the form of language to which we’re subject to.

As Wagenaar concludes on Foucault, ‘perhaps [he] is best appreciated not as a methodical guide to political analysis, but as an exemplar, a continuing source of inspiration, who suggests fruitful and exhilarating ways of inquiry and understanding.’(ibid: 112). An examination of other scholars who have used a Foucauldian discourse analysis when researching the introduction of a new concept will be conducted in the next section. However it is first necessary to clarify some of Foucault’s key arguements.

Meaning in use

Foucault based much of his discursive thought within an archaeological and genealogical aspect. Archeology is the study of human behaviour through the recovery and analysis of material culture, whereas genealogy is the study of how a set of social beliefs or behaviour(s) emerge in a certain time period (rather than just focusing on the dominant ideology of those beliefs / behaviour(s)). Foucault therefore is always a scholar who keeps his eye on history as an essential ingredient when analysing power in the context of politics, culture and society. One of Foucault’s prime archaeological theories in the understanding of meaning in use. Foucault argues that ‘statements are defined by their use.’ (ibid: 116). These statements make up a discursive field, but they can only be used by actors according to the rules of the field. This may sound complex, but Foucault was arguing that (unlike in the structuralist tradition), these rules are not predicated by ‘a set of practical judgements by concrete actors who possess a modicum of agency.’ (ibid: 116) because these rules are not within the actors heads. They are within the language that they are immersed in on a day to day basis. This non-hermeneutic interpretation explains how the language only means something through how it is used.

Genealogies of power and knowledge

A second, genealogical focus Foucault developed was linking the relationship between power and knowledge. Foucault advocated that knowledge is implicated within power, or rather, the former legitimises the latter. He assumed this through disassociating himself with traditional concepts of power; the state, the sovereign, ‘the macro’. Instead he focused on the ‘micro-powers’ – that ‘operates on bodies instead of territories’ (ibid: 119). These powers ‘form an infinitely detailed form of monitoring

(18)

~ 17 ~

and supervision whose aim it is to control the process of bodily activity.’ (ibid: 119). Foucault argued this through observing the emergence of social behaviours in the historical development of penal system. He noted that traditional political science theories of power (mainly the exercise of domination) inadequately explained how the penal system worked. Instead, new forms of surveillance and scientific disciplines, such as psychiatry and criminology, gave themselves a ‘certain scientific status, and new categories of subjects who were the exclusive object of these new intellectual disciplines, emerged together.’ (ibid: 119). In this sense, the perceived acquired knowledge of these sectors of the penal system entitled them to exercise their knowledge more – and through its subjects (criminals for example), increased its power within society. This is similar to the historical approach to the idea of madness. Whilst many individuals who are seen to have ‘mental illnesses’, something which is scientifically diagnosed as a personal certain problem of the individual in current contexts, medieval terminology would account for those with such problems to be anything from just ‘mad’ or ‘touched by god’ to the ‘demonically possessed’. Foucault is not telling us which approach is better, but he is instead warning us that this change in discursive meaning has the potential to dehumanise, subjugate and control groups of people. Such changes can create a social environment where barbaric acts to be potentially committed upon sections of society are made permissible through language.

Institutional power relations

One aspect of power that Foucault mentions can be directly compared to the introduction of enhanced ownership. See below;

‘Relationships of communication imply finalized activities (even if only the correct putting into operation of elements of meaning) and, by virtue of modifying the field of information between partners, produce effects of power. They can scarcely be dissociated from activities brought to their final term, be they those which permit the exercise of this power (such as training techniques, processes of domination, the means by which obedience is obtained) or those, which in order to develop their potential, call upon relations of power (the division of labor and the hierarchy of tasks).’ (Foucault, 1982: 787).

The idea Foucault presents would suggest that the EC’s drive to prioritise ownership with partners, whilst perhaps being an expression of goodwill, is nonetheless a subliminal expression of power. This strain of thought is similar to Esposito’s argument that the only way to maintain normative power is to be able to create new norms (Cisney & Morar, 2015: 93).

(19)

~ 18 ~

It is worth uncovering Foucault’s general assumptions of power relations within institutions and their role within society in general as this thesis cannot be separated from an institutional context. It is possible to identify three distinct points of assumption from Foucault when looking at power relations and functions within and outside of institutions. Firstly, Foucault argues that institutions are designed to fight for their own survival; ‘…the fact that an important part of the mechanisms put into operation by an institution are designed to ensure its own preservation brings with it the risk of deciphering functions which are essentially reproductive, especially in power relations between institutions.’ (Foucault, 1982: 791). He is also touching here on how the internal dynamics of institutions are relatable to other institutions, and can therefore affect how institutions develop relationships between each other. Secondly, Foucault points out that institutions are in-themselves an expression of power. This means that any researcher conducting an investigation into the power relationships of an institution must be aware that there are potential ‘layers’ of power both above them and below them’; ‘Second, in analyzing power relations from the standpoint of institutions, one lays oneself open to seeking the explanation and the origin of the former in the latter, that is to say, finally, to explain power to power.’ (Foucault, 1982: 791). Lastly, Foucault argues that institutions should not be analysed entirely from an internal viewpoint. The organic development of language and discourses is a process not reserved to institutions alone, and how power relationships develop within are subject to a range of factors that may have nothing to do with the institution themselves;

‘This does not deny the importance of institutions on the establishment of power relations. Instead, I wish to suggest that one must analyze institutions from the standpoint of power relations, rather than vice versa, and that the fundamental point of anchorage of the relationships, even if they are embodied and crystallized in an institution, is to be found outside the institution.’ (Foucault, 1982: 791).

How do these three points relate to the investigational aims of this thesis? Foucault’s assumptions of the power-relations in and around institutions can be linked and tested in regards to the investigation of the meaning of enhanced ownership. To summate, Foucault above has made three simple arguments;

i) Institutions are designed to fight for their own survival, and the characteristics which enable them to do so make them relatable to other institutions.

(20)

~ 19 ~

iii) Institutions are subject to linguistic and discursive traits that are not formed internally within them.

When delivering his inaugural lecture to the Collège de France in Paris in 1970, entitled ‘Orders of Discourse, Michel Foucault put forward his understanding of what discourse is, and argues that discourse should also be understood by what is being ‘left out’; by doing this, he advanced his hypothesis that all discourse is subject to procedures of power and power relations.

‘In a society such as our own we all know the rules of exclusion. The most obvious and familiar of these concerns what is prohibited. We know perfectly well that we are not free to say just anything, that we cannot simply speak of anything, when we like or where we like; not just anyone, finally, may speak of just anything.’ (Foucault, 1970: 8).

In order for us to understand the significance of Foucault and his interpretation of discourse it is necessary to briefly elucidate his break with the previously dominant school of thought related to the subject; the Frankfurt school and the starting affinities shared by the two positions. This school of critical theory, headed by Max Horkheimer and his colleagues in the early 1930s contested that the subject of modernity was not a linear process. The assertion is made that we do not live in a world of autonomous rational subjects which seek to represent and master the material objects within their world. ‘Knowing and acting subjects are social and embodied beings, and the products of their thought and action bear ineradicable traces of their situations and interests.’ (McCarthy, 1990: 438). These ‘products’ are created through language and discursive meaning, and are derived from a linguistic ontology. Meaning does not reside in the actions of actors but in the structural properties of the text; our realities are determined by the language we use. Thus, discourse is material.

Foucault split from the Frankfurt school due to its structural outlook, and their turning a blind eye to the idea that languages have developed historically and that they are therefore organic and evolutionary. Yet the stress of Foucault’s outlook is reserved to power relationships. His method is focused on how the social world can be understood and expressed through language, and that this language is affected by differing sources of power. As such, a Foucauldian approach to researching a given topic is closely allied to social-constructivism in attempting to understand how the society we live in is constructed through language, and subsequently, ideas and cultural norms. Dreyfus and Rabinow summate this train of thought of the grouping of rules as ‘speech acts’; ‘Foucault wants to argue that the islands of density in which serious speech acts proliferate are the result of principles which operate from within or from behind discourse to constrain what can count as objects, what sorts of things can

(21)

~ 20 ~

seriously be said about them, who can say them, and what concepts can be used in the saying.’ (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982: 71).

This section has described the emergence of Foucauldian theory from the shift of structuralist to post-structuralist theory. The key pillars he recognised when studying discourse have also been depicted.

2.3 Designing a Foucauldian discourse analysis

This section will introduce how the wider discussed Foucauldian concepts are to be integrated into a manageable research design. There will be an exploration as to how such a subject as concept-introduction (to make it relatable to the meaning of introduction of enhanced ownership) is approached from a Foucauldian perspective using examples of scholarly work. Liz Sharpe and Tim Richard state the importance of ‘framing’ discourse when looking at policy in a discursive Foucauldian fashion cannot be overlooked. (Sharpe & Richardson, 2001: 202). This means not just identifying Foucaults discursive theories of genealogies of power / knowledge, institutional power relations and meaning in use, but also explaining how they conducted within the institution in question. Sharpe and Richardson argue that this can be conducted by introducing greater focus as a second step in research;

‘In Tim’s research, the aim was to reconstruct the narrative of one strand of policy development, to understand the contested construction of strategic environmental assessment. Once this focus was established, the approach was to critically analyse policy documents and interview policy actors and carefully probe the events which shaped this process. The effects of institutional politics, for example, were teased out by interviewing actors occupying different positions in the struggle.’ (Sharpe & Richardson, 2001: 206).

The authors argue that researchers need to be reflexive throughout their research (Sharpe & Richardson, 2001: 207). When analysing data it will be possible to associate the discourses with Foucault’s three theories that have been outlined in the previous section. They can be coded for example in the following way;

Theoretical Strand Basic discursive code example

Genealogies of power / knowledge - In-text evidence of ‘micro-powers’, or where changes in linguistic rules legitimise the institutions actions.

Institutional power relations - In-text evidence of an institution looking to ensure its own survival through discursive gratification. (This can also apply to individuals within institutions).

(22)

~ 21 ~

- In-text evidence of DG NEAR being an expression of power in itself (i.e. by displaying dominance over another institution).

Meaning in use - In-text evidence of statements that

are made permissible by the rules allowed in context.

Table 1. – Examples of Foucauldian Discursive Codes

The codes above are examples of how the data will be ‘measured’ qualitatively in relation to theory, but during the empirical analysis there will be reflective strands where referral not just to theory but also subjective understanding / experience of the interview situation for example, or of the context of the press release at the time.

The data for this thesis comes in two forms; firstly, the processes and the facts, and secondly, the linguistic outlook. In order for successful analysis to be conducted, the underlying ‘partially fixed systems of rules, norms, resources, practices, and subjectivities’ (as earlier mentioned) need to be linked between the processes and facts, the linguistic data and the general theory. This will constitute to common themes / patterns being found throughout the discourse.

Though Foucault never wrote an actual methodological guide on how to conduct a text-by-text analysis of discourses, Kendall and Wickham condense from his array of work a simple three step procedure when looking at a single discourse; firstly, it is necessary to recognise a discourse as a ‘corpus of 'statements' whose organisation is regular and systematic.’ (Kendall & Wickham, 1999: 42). Thereafter the truth in understanding any discourse lies in the three following factors;

1) The identification of rules of the production of statements;

2) The identification of rules that delimit the sayable (which of course are never rules of closure);

3) The identification of rules that create the spaces in which new statements can be made;

(Kendall & Wickham, 1999: 42)

The three steps can be simplified into; a) how are these statements created? b) what observable things are left out of the discourse, and what does that tell us about what is left in c) what rules are creating the spaces for new statements to be made in the discourse. One can be forgiven for thinking that this a highly abstract and nuanced method. However, if it is linked with a sound empirical observations to discussed theory, then what is uncovered utilising this method can tell us much about how ownership is conceptualized and what it means, per document / speech / transcript.

(23)

~ 22 ~

Looking at ownership, Foucault’s attempt to ‘identify the regulative or ideological underpinnings of dominant discourses: vocabularies which constrain the way in which we think about and act in the world’ (Wooffitt, 2005: 146) is certainly apt when attempting to understand the meaning of ownership within discourses.

2.4 Data collection methods

This section will detail how the qualitative data is to be gathered. A more specific outline of DG NEAR will be portrayed, coupled with important events / speeches which deserve analysis. Data will be collected specifically in two ways. Firstly (and primarily) through interviews. Secondly, it will analyse policy documents and recorded speeches from policy-makers and stakeholders.

Whilst it is possible to perform a discourse analysis of the official documentation concerning the ENP originating from DG NEAR, it does not account for the internal dynamics of such an institution. Gathering qualitative data from interviews enables a closer perspective. Interviewing members of DG NEAR (and similar institutions) enables two different types of data to be collected; procedural and subjective. Procedural data is explicit: a procedural question solicits a procedural answer. For example, a question concerning who did what or when did something happen normally results in a factually answer. A subjective question opens up more space for the recipient of the questions to divulge their personal story and opinions. An example of this would be asking how an individual feels about their work and position within an institution for example. It is more subjective, but can also give illuminating insights into how a person views themselves and the environment they live and / or work in. The appropriate line of questioning therefore will begin in a procedural manner and then progress to more subjective inquiry. It is also worth contemplating the context and appropriateness of interview situation. DG NEAR is structured in a similar nature to its corresponding directorate generals in other sectors. (See Figure 1., Annex).

In order for the fullest portrayal of the working practices in DG NEAR to be presented and therefore increased reliability of data collection, the heads of every unit were contacted. Unfortunately, the European Commissioner representing DG NEAR, Johannes Hahn was not available for interview, nor the Director General or subsequent two Deputy Director Generals. In order for a discourse analysis from the ‘top’ of the institution to be conducted, the corresponding speech (Mogherini & Hahn (ii), 2015) to the AFET Committee (Foreign Affairs) of the European Parliament on the day of the ENP Review release will be investigated. This was made by both Hanh and the EC Vice-President Frederica Moghderini, and will provide not only an interesting

(24)

~ 23 ~

discursive analysis of the highest level of policy making from DG NEAR and the EC in general, but will also be important to consider from an inter-institutional dynamic (due to it being an address to a foreign institutional body – the European Parliament).Within DG NEAR, the secondary aim therefore was to gain as much discursive information from different units. From an extensive list of requests, it was possible to gain responses from Units A, B, and D.

When the data collected from interviews, institutional documents and academic sources is combined with the simple research design elucidated in this chapter, then the validity of answering the central research question is assured.

2.5 Reasoning

This small methodological paragraph condenses the theory and subsequent research design outlined in this chapter, and presets the consequential overall method used to answer the central research question.

It is reasonable to assume that this thesis itself constructs a definition of ownership (despite this not being an inherent aim) in accordance with the nature of its findings. It is worth noting at this stage however that due to discrepancies in defining ownership and a lack of in-depth observations into the subject, constructing an understanding of what it is requires approaching the subject with an abductive view (see Table 2. below).

Inductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning Abductive Reasoning Moving from specific

observations to a general conclusion.

Moving from general assumptions to a specific conclusion.

Incomplete observations leading to the best possible explanation.

Table 2. – Types of Reasoning

The abductive process enables research into more novel fields of political science to retain a level of flexibility and less restriction. In order to understand the field and further construct my personal understanding of it, and how others understand it, a noticeable referral from theory to empirics and vice-versa will be apparent within the following three analytical chapters so as to improve the quality of my conclusions. This will also be apparent when performing my discourse analysis (see second chapter), as the findings will naturally combine with sections of my theory that answer certain. The more nuanced use of abductive reasoning also fits with my opinion that non-realist theory, most notably social-constructivism and sociological-institutionalism, is the best approach to utilise when understanding institutional

(25)

~ 24 ~

dynamics and the factors at play there. Finally, whilst the basic coding of Foucault has been displayed, referral back to other aspects of power relations in Foucauldian theory within the three chapters will be commonplace.

(26)

~ 25 ~

Chapter 3: Understanding the Institutional History of Ownership

This chapter will consider data collected from EU Institutional documentation where ownership is mentioned. In doing so, it will understand institutional definitions of ownership, and what meaning is therefore attributed to ownership in context. Periodisation - or how the meaning of ownership has changed over time in this context will also be analysed. This section can be attributed to Foucault's archaeological method, and will be linked back to appropriate theory.

3.1 Institutional definitions of ownership

It has already been noted in the introductive chapter that the European does not have a set definition of ownership or what it means within the latest ENP review. In order to form an understanding of these ‘blank-spots’, it is worth conducting an archaeological investigation into how it has been portrayed in the past. Within this section, Foucault’s simple argument that one should look for ‘serious statements’ in discourses, or statements that are ‘a specific class of statements that are understood by hearers as authoritative or true far beyond the immediate context in which they are uttered (Wagenaar, 2011: 115), will be pursued. After the lifting of statements, their definitions will be compared in the following section. Only statements that connect to any semblance of a definition of ownership are identified.

Before looking at what ownership has meant and does mean within an institutional context it is first necessary to compare how the EC has defined ownership since its first inception within the 2003 document ‘Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbours’, the precursive document that initiated the European Neighbourhood policy.

‘these benchmarks should be developed in close cooperation with the partner countries themselves, in order to ensure national

ownership’ (European Commission, 2003: 16)

This is the first mentioning of national ownership, and it attributes it to benchmarking in order to guarantee efficiency.

2004 - European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper

‘Joint ownership of the process, based on the awareness of shared values and common interests, is essential.’ (European Commission, 2004: 8).

The Commission here then defines ownership within the context of an awareness of shared values and common interests.

(27)

~ 26 ~

2006 - Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy

‘Joint ownership. The operational tool of the policy – the ENP Action Plan – is fully negotiated and mutually agreed at political level. It is not an imposition by either side, but an agreed agenda for common work.’ (European Commission, 2006: 2).

Here the Commission describes ownership as a mechanism that allows ENP Action Plan negotiation at a political level, consenting with mutual agreement.

‘it will be important to pursue an open dialogue with our partner countries, in order to enhance the mutual ownership of the ENP.’ (European Commission, 2006: 14).

Here it is more associated with open dialogue.

2008 - Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2007

‘This differentiation will also lead to greater ownership on the part of the partner countries.’ (European Commission, 2008: 8).

As this document focuses on the implementation of the ENP, ownership is viewed as a positive result of differentiation.

2009 - Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2008

‘The July 2008 Paris Summit launched the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) with the objectives of providing new political impetus for the EU’s critical relationship with its Mediterranean partners, providing greater co-ownership and making this relationship more concrete and visible through regional and sub-regional projects’ (European Commission, 2009: 7).

Within a historical context, ownership is framed as a positive aspiration of the Union or the Mediterranean.

2010 - Taking stock of the European Neighbourhood Policy

‘…by providing for further co-ownership through a system of co-presidency (one from the EU and one from the Mediterranean partner side’ (European Commission, 2010: 13).

Here the Commission defines ownership as influencing the design of institutions. 2013 - European Neighbourhood Policy: Working towards a Stronger Partnership

‘…the Roadmap illustrates the concepts of mutual accountability and joint ownership that are essential for moving towards political association and economic integration.’ (European Commission, 2013: 5).

Ownership here is defined with mutual accountability as an essential environment that creates stronger political and economic ties.

(28)

~ 27 ~

2014 - Neighbourhood at the crossroads – taking stock of a year of challenges

‘Co-ownership and mutual accountability are at the core of the ENP. For example, Association Agreements and DCFTAs with our partner countries also offer opportunities and benefits to the neighbours of the neighbours. Cooperation and the creation of networks do not stop at the borders of the ENP partners, but reach beyond them. It is an inclusive policy.’ (European Commission, 2014: 6).

Once again, ownership is defined with mutual accountability in mind. Yet it also extrapolates that it is inducive to the creation of networks.

2015 - Staff Working Document: Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy

‘…ownership and the robust design of programmes have sometimes been sacrificed in the name of faster delivery.’ (European Commission (ii), 2015: 16). This statement associates ownership to be conducive to policy robustness.

‘Ownership was described as essential in terms of greater impact of policies, more tailor-made approaches buy-in to difficult reforms, and the effectiveness of reforms.’ (European Commission (ii), 2015: 18).

Ownership here is defined as an essential environment for having greater impacting policies, specific approaches and the effectiveness of reforms.

‘The new ENP should foster greater ownership, reflecting the views and experience of the partner countries (government and civil society). The EU should develop a true partnership of equals based on shared interests, while always promoting universal principles of democracy and human rights.’ (European Commission (ii), 2015: 19).

Here the use of ownership and partnership is interchangeable, but it is defined as a request from partner countries to promote shared interests and universal principles.

Looking at the omnifarious range of definitions above, it is clear that the EC does not have a specific definition of ownership. Nor does it have an agreed context in which to use it. The following section will gather together this set of definitions, group them in accordance with their implications and analyse their meanings back to Foucauldian theory.

3.2 Institutional meanings of ownership

Fischer and Gottweis point out that when studying public policy in the post-structural tradition it is necessary to ‘explore the way in which subjects are formed and act in the policy-making process, as well as the wider structures of social relations in which they

(29)

~ 28 ~

operate’ (Fischer & Gottweis, 2012: 307). It is logical therefore to split the discursive definitions above into two groups of meaning, the policy related vs wider institutional context. From the associations above, it is possible to associate the overall ownership discourse of the EC in policy documents into these two specific groups of meaning. See Table 3. below;

Institutional meaning

Policy meaning

 Awareness of shared values and common interests. (2004)

 Shared interests and universal principles (2015)

 Open dialogue. (2006)

 Positive aspiration of the Union or the Mediterranean. (2009)

 Influencing the design of institutions. (2010)

 Creation of networks. (2014)

 Benchmarking in order to guarantee efficiency. (2003)

 As a mechanism that allows ENP Action Plan negotiation at a political level, consenting with mutual agreement. (2006)

 Positive result of differentiation (2008).

 Stronger political and economic ties. (2013)

 Conducive to policy robustness. (2015)

 Creates an essential environment for having greater impacting policies, specific approaches and the effectiveness of reforms. (2015) Table 3. – The Meanings of Institutional Definitions of Ownership

It is plausible therefore that the EC’s overall discourse concerning ownership is linked to two themes or frames, institutional meaning and policy-making meaning. Referring back to Foucault’s theory on ‘meaning in use’, Foucault argues that ‘statements are defined by their use.’ (Wagenaar, 2011: 116). These statements are used in two discursive fields, but they can only be used by actors according to the rules of the field. The rules of these two separate fields of discourse can be identified. And it also through these rules that Foucault argues that an institution exercises discursive power;

‘It is necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication which transmit information by means of a language, a system of signs, or any other symbolic medium. No doubt communicating is always a certain way of acting upon another person or persons. But the production and circulation of elements of meaning can have as their objective or as their consequence certain results in the realm of power.’ (Foucault, 1982: 786)