Re Discourse Analysis : Creative Facilitation

Discourse Analysis

1) The focus of discourse analysis should be local points of power rather than centralized forms to show how power functions daily through normalized techniques and procedures.

OK 

2) Analysis should focus on the material or practicaleffects of power rather than a search for its origins.

OK

3) Power should be analyzed as operating independently of particular persons; individuals are only the conduits through which power moves.

OK

4) Studies should portray power as ascending from the lowest levels of society (the family, schools, etc.) rather than descending from above.

? this allows for potential but does it adequately acknowledge the internalisation of oppressive power structures 

(Foucault) re access to inherent resources

5) Power should not be treated as ideology, but instead as the rules and instruments that produce what is accepted as "truth".

? "Ideology"    technologies of the self?  conceptual apparatus > expert systems?

Giddens

In "Modernity and Self-identity" by Anthony Giddens.

He is very good at describing how we cast ourselves as selves in the contemporary world. Modernity's fundamental attitude towards knowledge is radical scepticism and doubt...which means that when it comes to 'making the self' we have to do it alone..'reflexively'. But we do it amidst a bewildering array of options and possibilities. That is a fact of post-traditional life. No wonder we are anxious...

Trust is basic to modernity, because we have given over knowledge in so many areas to experts. We need to trust them in order to operate: that the train driver knows what he is doing, that the vitamins we take won't give us cancer, that omega 3 oils are good for us, etc. Which is why when expert knowledge is proven mistaken or corrupt we are thrown into such anxiety... it is also true that some of this expert knowledge is getting us into trouble, because we can't integrate it into a whole. So, we may take a pill that solves one problem, only to find it gives us another.

So: 'self-identity becomes a reflexively organised endeavour. The reflexive project of the self...consists in the sustaining of coherent, yet continuously revised, biographical narratives '. We see oursleves as 'writing'/'performing' on life's stage. This is where 'lifestyle' comes in: it is our choice of life-story as far as we have a choice. It is also interesting that the intimate relationship - the 'pure relationship', not formed from anything other than choice - has become so crucial to the way we project our lives.

This affects the body as well... the body as an outward form of our self is subject to our construction and control, or at least our attempts to do so. He notes along with this that our culture has a powerful sense of shame attached to bodies especially. Giddens also notes that the reflexive project of the self generates programmes of actualisation and mastery, though these lack moral meaning.... 'authenticity becomes both a pre-eminent value and a framework for self-actualisation, but represents a morally stunted process' (p. 9).

http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2006/03/giddens-and-self-identity.html

Expertise, Foucault

Layder claims Foucault does not identify any power groups as being dominant although he does admit to stable structures existing , (crystallised discorses?), however he does identify experts as a source of power in  a discourse, are they considered specific to individual discourses, are they  considered a dominant group? how does this relate to Knowledge- Random Flow in thew context of self organisation