Cover not available
Part of
Studies of Discourse and Governmentality: New perspectives and methods
Edited by Paul McIlvenny, Julia Zhukova Klausen and Laura Bang Lindegaard
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 66] 2016
► pp. 149–176

Governing governments?

Discursive contestations of governmentality in the transparency dispositif

In a world of controversy and suspicion, transparency promises a ‘virtuous chain’ of informed citizens, rational deliberation and democratic participation. In contrast, this essay conceptualises transparency as a Foucauldian dispositif: a network of discourse, tactics, institutional processes and local subjectivities which articulates what kinds of actions and statements are admissible and tactically profitable. Notably, transparency discourse mobilises individual citizens to audit the state – to govern governments. This becomes the basis upon which the state and other institutions may legitimise and delegitimise one another through strategic uses of transparency discourse. We illustrate these processes through an examination of the ‘Séralini Affair’: a prominent controversy over GMO, scientific expertise and transparency in France. We analyse transparency discourse invoked by major stakeholders in the Affair, drawing tools from critical discourse analysis and French discourse analysis.
Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.66.05hon
References (93)
References
Agamben, Giorgio. 2009. What Is an Apparatus? And Other Essays. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Amoore, Louise. 2011. “Data Derivatives: On the Emergence of a Security Risk Calculus for Our Times.” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (6): 24–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amossy, Ruth, and Marcel Burger. 2011. “Introduction: La polémique médiatisée [Introduction: The mediated polemic].” Semen 31.Google Scholar
Andrejevic, Mark. 2005. “The Work of Watching One Another: Lateral Surveillance, Risk, and Governance.” Surveillance & Society 2 (4): 479–497.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Surveillance and Alienation in the Online Economy.” Surveillance & Society 8 (3): 278–287.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2012. “Dr. Seralini – Please release data from your biotech corn study.” Ipetitions. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
ANSES. 2012. “A Presentation of ANSES’s Opinion Following Its Analysis of the Study by Séralini, et al. (2012) “Long Term Toxicity of a ROUNDUP Herbicide and a ROUNDUP-tolerant Genetically-modified Maize”.” ANSES.fr. October 22. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Arjó, Gemma, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, and Paul Christou. 2013. “Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An in Depth Analysis of the Séralini, et al. Study Claiming that Roundup™ Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ Cause Cancer in Rats.” Transgenic Research 22 (2): 255-267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Augoustinos, Martha, Shona Crabb, and Richard Shepherd. 2010. “Genetically Modified Food in the News: Media Representations of the GM Debate in the UK.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (1): 98-114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beer, David. 2009. “Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious.” New Media & Society 11 (6): 985–1002. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Lance W., Lynne A. Gressett, and William Haltom. 1985. “Repairing the News: A Case Study of the News Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 35 (2): 50-68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigo, Didier. 2002. “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease.” Alternatives 27 (1): 63–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birchall, Claire. 2012. “Introduction to ‘Secrecy and Transparency’: The Politics of Opacity and Openness.” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (7-8): 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonny, Sylvie. 2003. "Why Are Most Europeans Opposed to GMOs? Factors Explaining Rejection in France and Europe." Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 6 (1): 50-71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
boyd, danah, and Kate Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 662–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bussolini, Jeffrey. 2010. “What Is a Dispositive?” Foucault Studies 10: 85–107.Google Scholar
Cheney-Lippold, John. 2011. “A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control.” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (6): 164–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Guy. 2004. Genetically Modified Language: The Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Courtine, Jean-Jacques. 1981. “Quelques problèmes théoriques et méthodologiques en analyse du discours, à propos du discours communiste adressé aux Chrétiens [Some theoretical and methodological problems in discourse analysis, regarding the communist discourse addressed to Christians].” Langages 15(62): 9-128.Google Scholar
CRIIGEN. 2012a. “All Guinea Pigs! Severe Toxic Effects of a GMO and of the Major Gerbicide of the World.” CRIIGEN. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012b. “GMO, Global Alert.” CRIIGEN. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2013. “Raw Data Released to a Notary.” CRIIGEN. 14 January. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2007. “Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: From Consensus to Contestation.” New Media & Society 9 (5): 827–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. “What Is a Dispositif?”. In Michel Foucault: Philosopher, ed. by T.J. Armstrong, 159-168. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary. 2001. “Dealing with Uncertainty.” Ethical Perspectives 8 (3): 145-155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EFSA. 2003. “Openness, Transparency and Confidentiality.” European Food Safety Authority. September 16. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2006. “Transparency in Risk Assessment Carried Out by EFSA: Guidance Document on Procedural Aspects.” European Food Safety Authority. April 11. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2009. “Scientific Opinion - Transparency in Risk Assessment – Scientific Aspects Guidance of the Scientific Committee on Transparency in the Scientific Aspects of Risk Assessments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: General Principles.” European Food Safety Authority. April 7. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012a. “EFSA Provides Séralini, et al. with Data on GK Maize NK603.” European Food Safety Authority. October 22. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012b. “EFSA Publishes Initial Review on GM Maize and Herbicide Study.” European Food Safety Authority. October 4. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012c. “Frequently Asked Questions on Review of Séralini, et al. (2012) Study.” European Food Safety Authority. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012d. “Letter to Prof. Séralini Regarding EFSA’s Review of the Séralini et al. (2012) Publication on a 2-year Rodent Feeding Trial with Glyphosate Formulations and GM Maize NK603 as Published Online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, 18 October 2012.” European Food Safety Authority. October 18. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
European Union. 2001. “Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 Regarding Public Access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.” European Parliament. May 31. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Ferguson, James, and Akhil Gupta. 2002. “Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality.” American Ethnologist 29 (4): 981–1002. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 3(2): 193–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings, ed. by Alec McHoul and Mark Rapley, 25–38. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2001b. Language and Power. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Faye, Jean-Pierre. 1972. Théorie du récit. Introduction aux «langages totalitaires » [Narrative theory. Introduction to ‘totalitarian languages’]. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. by Colin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
. 2007. Security, Territory and Population (Lectures at the Collège De France 1977-78), ed. by Michel Senellart. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics (Lectures at the Collège De France, 1978-1979), ed. by Michel Senellart. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
French National Academies. 2012. “Joint Advice Note Issued by the French National Academies of Agriculture, Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences, Technologies and Veterinary Sciences in Regard to a Recent Publication by G.E. Seralini, et al. on the Toxicity of a GMO.” Academie-sciences.fr. [URL].Google Scholar
Furchner, Ingrid, and Peter Münte. 2006. “Opening Up the Public Space: On the Framing and Re-framing of a Discussion Meeting about GMO Field Trials.” In Analyzing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-making Processes, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf and Alfonz Bora, 199-222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
GMOSeralini.org. 2013. “We Are All Guinea Pigs now!: Watch the Trailer Here!” GMOSeralini.org. September 10. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Gordon, Colin. 1991. “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed. by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, 1-52. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grard, Loïc. 2000. “La transparence un principe ascendant de la réalisation de l’Union Européenne [Transparency as a rising principle in the formation of the European Union].” Communication & Organisation 17.Google Scholar
Horsbøl, Anders and Inger Lassen. 2011. “Timing GMO: Discursive Constructions of Temporality in Local Discussions of a Global Issue.” Critical Discourse Studies 8 (2): 127-141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Eva. 2012. “Logics of Political Secrecy.” Theory, Culture & Society, 28 (7-8): 103-122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huet, Sylvestre. 2012. “Les rats, les OGM et l'opération de communication [The rats, the GMOs and the operation of communication].” Libération. September 24. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Independent Science News. (2012). “Seralini and Science: An Open Letter.” Independent Science News. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Jeanneret, Yves. 1998. “L'affaire Sokal: Comprendre la trivialité [The Sokal affair: Understanding triviality].” Communication et Langages 118: 13-26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1980. “La polémique et ses définitions [The polemic and its definitions].” In Le discours polémique [The polemical discourse], ed. by Nadine Gelas and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 3-40. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Krieg-Planque, Alice. 2006. “«Formules» et «lieux discursifs»: Propositions pour l’analyse du discours politique [‘Formules’ and ‘discursive place’: Propositions for political discourse analysis].” Semen, 21.Google Scholar
. 2009. La notion de formule en analyse de discours: Cadre théorique et méthodologique [The notion of formule in discourse analysis: Theoretical and methodological framework]. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Le Monde. 2012. “Le maïs, les rats et l'urgence de l'expertise [The maize, the rats, and the emergency of expertise].” Le Monde. September 21. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Lemke, Thomas. 2002. “Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique.” Rethinking Marxism 14 (3): 49–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lessig, Lessig. 2006. Code. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Libaert, Thierry. 2003. La transparence en trompe-l’œil [Transparency in trompe-l’œil]. Paris: Editions Descartes.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Adam. 2006. Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Malaurie, Guillaume. 2012. “Oui, les OGM sont des poisons! [Yes, GMOs are poisons!]” Le Nouvel Observateur. September 20. [URL].Google Scholar
Maingueneau, Dominique. 2005. “L’analyse du discours et ses limites [Discourse analysis and its boundaries].” Marges Linguistiques, 9.Google Scholar
Mayaffre, Damon. 2009. “Review of “Alice Krieg-Planque. La notion de formule en analyse de discours: Cadre théorique et méthodologique” [Review of Alice Krieg-Planque, The notion of formule in discourse analysis: Theoretical and methodological framework].” Corpus 8.Google Scholar
Mazière, Francine. 2005. L’analyse du discours. Histoire et pratiques [Discourse analysis: History and practice]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Monnoyer-Smith, Laurence. 2013. “Le web comme dispositif : Comment appréhender le complexe [The web as dispositif: How to understand the complex].” In Manuel d'analyse du web en sciences humaines et sociales [Manual for web analysis in the human and social sciences], ed. by Christine Barats. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the Posthumanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Nouvel Observateur. 2012. “OGM: Qui est Gilles-Eric Séralini, l’auteur de l’étude? [Who is Gilles-Eric Séralini, the author of the study?]” Le Nouvel Observateur. September 19. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Obama, Barack. 2008. “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Transparency and Open Government.” The White House. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
O’Malley, Pat. 2008. “Government and Risk.” In Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction, ed. by Jens O. Zinn, 52-75. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paveau, Marie-Anne. 2012. “Que veut dire travailler en analyse du discours en France en 2011? Épistémologies, objets, méthodes [What does working in discourse analysis mean in France in 2011? Epistemologies, objects, methods].” In Proceedings of III Encontro Internacional de Estudos da Linguagem, September 2011, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rose, Nikolas. 1993. “Government, Authority and Expertise in Advanced Liberalism.” Economy and Society 22 (3): 283–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séralini, Gilles-Eric. 2012. Tous cobayes! [All of us guinea-pigs now!] Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Séralini, Gilles-Eric, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois. 2012. “Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11): 4221-4231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schepens, Philippe. 2009. “Critical Discourse Analysis I. Les notions de contexte et d’acteurs sociaux” [Critical Discourse Analysis I. Notions of Context and Social Actors]. Semen, 27.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, Peter. 1987. Critique of Cynical Reason. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387-420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starling, Shane. 2013. “Monsanto Threatens to Sue EFSA over Publication of Maize GM Data.” Food Navigator. March 8. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Sumpf, Joseph, and Jean Dubois. 1969. “Les problèmes de l'analyse du discours [The problems with discourse analysis].” Langages 13: 3-7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, John B. 2005. “The New Visibility.” Theory, Culture & Society 22 (6): 31–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turow, Joe. 2006. Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, 352-371. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Zoonen, Liesbet. 2012. “I-Pistemology: Changing Truth Claims in Popular and Political Culture.” European Journal of Communication 27 (1): 56–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni. 1992. The Transparent Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wojcik, Stéphanie. 2010. “La démocratie électronique, mythe et réalité [The electronic democracy: myth and reality].” In La démocratie. histoire, théories, pratiques [Democracy: History, theory, practice], ed. by Jean-Vince Holeindre and Benoît Richard, 121-129. Auxerre: Editions Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar
Wolton, Dominique. 2009. Informer n’est pas communiquer [Informing is not communicating]. Paris: CNRS Edition.Google Scholar
Yanoshevsky, Galia. 2003. “De la polémique a la polémique journalistique [From polemic to journalistic polemic].” Recherches en Communication 20.Google Scholar
Yu, Harlan, and David G. Robinson. 2012. “New Ambiguity of ‘Open Government’.” 59 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 178.Google Scholar
Zaret, David. 2000. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar