چکیده:
Edward Said is regarded as the originator of colonial discourse theory. He deploys Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse to accomplish his project in Orientalism and emphasizes Foucault’s notion of discourse and its relation to power, rendering discourse a carceral system. Although Said explicitly expresses the similarity between Orientalism and Foucault’s discourse theory, it seems he implicitly suggests that the carceral quality of Foucault’s idea affects his formulation of Orientalism. This study examines the validity of Said’s understanding of Foucault and shows that Said’s construction of Orientalism is based on an imperfect image of Foucault. Argument here is to postulate that Foucault’s discourse theory provides space for resistance and his theorization of power helps the idea of struggle in discursive practices. Besides, Foucault himself is trapped in a discourse produced by Said. This study casts light on Foucault’s theory of discourse and modifies this misreading.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Argument here is to postulate that Foucault’s discourse theory provides space for resistance and his theorization of power helps the idea of struggle in discursive practices.
Keywords: Edward Said; Colonial Discourse Theory; Michel Foucault; Discourse; Power The parallel between Foucault’s carceral system and Orientalism is striking.
Introduction Edward Said is known as one of the pioneer figures of postcolonial studies, alongside Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and he is often considered as the originator of the colonial discourse theory (Ashcroft & Ahluwalia, 2008).
Said shows his dissatisfaction with the Foucauldian notion of discourse by maintaining that Foucault annihilates the possibility of resistance and change through the way in which Foucault connects discourse to power.
Thus, we survey Said’s approach towards Foucault and begin our study with his appreciation and deployment of Foucauldian ideas and, then, we consider Said’s criticism of Foucault’s discourse.
Said’s conception about Foucault’s theory of discourse and its relation to power is the central issue of our discussion.
Although they provide a good account of Said’s methodological errors and reveal his inaccurate deployment of Foucault’s concept of discourse and the idea of representation in Orientalism, they are in total agreement with Said’s critique of Foucault regarding resistance and declare: The problem Said has with Foucault is a lingering sense that he is more fascinated with the way power operates than committed to trying to change power relations in society.