Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology

Abstract The purpose of this article is to provoke much‐needed discussion on the uses by feminists, in particular feminist political scientists, of the language of discourse, discourses and discursive. The terms, it argues, have become ubiquitous, with considerable confusion about intended meanings. A particular concern is the growing tendency among some feminist political scientists to use “discourse” as shorthand for ways of talking about an issue. Critical to sorting through different meanings of discourse, it argues, is the question of subject “agency”—the extent to which subjects can use discourses or are constituted by them. As a way forward the article advances a dual‐focus agenda that builds bridges across discourse traditions; identifying both the ways in which interpretive and conceptual schemas delimit understandings, and the politics involved in the intentional deployment of concepts and categories to achieve specific political goals. Notes 1. I place the term “agency” in scare quotes because some theorists interested in questions about this topic argue that the whole meaning of “agency” needs to be rethought. 2. I place the term “Foucauldian” in scare quotes because of R. Keith Sawyer's Citation(2002) fine paper challenging the common association of this meaning of discourse with Foucault. 3. In my own work (Citation1999), which examines competing problem representations in some central areas of women's policy, I was often kept “honest” through reading analyses from feminists and women outside my perspective. This, I suggest, is necessary in order to avoid inadvertently buying into discursive understandings that are limiting and/or exploitative of others.