A Discourse Analysis of “The Remains of the Day” by Ishiguro

The Remains of the Day, by Kazuo Ishiguro, a Japanese-born British novelist, was in 1989 and translated in into by Najaf Daryabandary in 1996. The novel is follows six-day trip journey taken in 1956 James Stevens, the butler of an aristocratic hall in England, English manor. discourse analysis, method employed, based on the ideas of Michel Foucault. Discourse refers to a regular set of consistent that are hidden embedded within structures, behind individual structures that underlie and everyday theories, and imposes language, imposing forms of modes and speech. behavior, this regard, the concepts context, institution, subject and power/knowledge subject, considered. examined. This article demonstrates that Steven's subjectivity, as a subject within the discourse of butlerism, is shaped by the institutions and discourses of aristocracy and butlerism, as well as the power structures underpinning the British aristocratic system. It explores how the knowledge defining the butlerism discourse and the role of the butler constructs Stevens's behavior and thinking, leading him to accept the unquestioned superiority of the masters and aristocracy in the normal, self-evident, and natural. Steven's subjectivity within this discourse internalizes these binaries, along with the associated rules, disciplines, and systems of discrimination, resulting in a distorted perception of his position as a butler. Through the mechanisms of this discourse, he becomes both the bearer of his own prison and an active participant in his own confinement.
Introduction
Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day (1989) stands as one of the most distinguished literary works of the twentieth century. Ishiguro, a British novelist of Japanese descent and the 2017 Nobel Laureate in Literature, presents in this novel a profound portrayal of the crisis of individual identity and the collapse of social order in post–World War II Britain. The Persian translation by Najaf Daryabandari was published in 1996. On the surface, the novel recounts the story of James Stevens, a butler who embarks on a short journey to the north of England while reflecting on his professional and personal past. Beneath this seemingly simple narrative, however, lies a text that can be analyzed through Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse as a literary representation of the mechanisms of power, knowledge, and subject formation. The central question of this study concerns how the discourse of English aristocracy, through its institutions, values, and power/knowledge structures, constructs a submissive and obedient subject like Stevens, while simultaneously preventing him from achieving any real sense of freedom.
From a Foucauldian perspective, discourse is a system of statements and rules that determine what can be said or even thought. Power, rather than functioning merely as a repressive force, operates as a productive mechanism that generates knowledge and shapes subjects within specific normative frameworks. In this context, the subject is not simply a victim but also an accomplice to power, internalizing discipline and voluntarily aligning personal behavior with the norms of discourse—becoming, in Foucault’s words, the “policeman of his own mind.” This concept lies at the heart of Ishiguro’s novel: within the aristocratic house of Darlington Hall, surveillance, discipline, and social order operate in subtle and invisible ways.
Analytical processing of the topic
In the historical setting of the novel, the English aristocracy functions not merely as a social class but as a cultural discourse that defines values such as dignity and loyalty as the essential virtues of the ideal butler. The institution of butlership itself is part of this discourse, where the worth of a “great butler” is measured by absolute obedience and loyalty to his master. Stevens, who has served Lord Darlington for many years, is a complete product of this discursive order. He interprets the notion of dignity as the total suppression of personal emotions and unquestioning service to authority, believing that his human value lies solely in the perfect performance of his professional duties. Consequently, when his master becomes indirectly involved in Nazi sympathies, Stevens remains incapable of moral judgment, for within his world, the master is the ultimate source of truth and legitimacy.
Stevens’s language reflects the full extent of this internalized discipline. His speech is formal, restrained, and devoid of emotion, maintaining a strict boundary between his “personal self” and “professional self.” What appears as politeness and composure is, in fact, an instrument of power—a linguistic manifestation of how discourse dominates the mind of the subject. Notably, Stevens seems almost devoid of a personal name. When he and his father both serve at Darlington Hall, he insists that they be addressed by their surname only, erasing personal identity altogether. As a butler, he must sacrifice all private matters, feelings, and desires for the sake of professionalism—a tendency that becomes evident in his relationships with both his father and Miss Kenton.
Memories of his father’s death, his intimate conversations with Miss Kenton, and his feelings of regret and failure are all conveyed in a neutral, restrained tone. On the night of his father’s passing, despite his father’s wish to speak with him, Stevens suppresses his emotions and immediately returns to his duties. Similarly, he fails to express empathy or affection toward Miss Kenton during critical moments in their relationship, consistently prioritizing his professional obligations. As a result, the only potential emotional connection in his life remains unrealized. What appears to be loyalty and professionalism on the surface is, in reality, the product of internalized discipline and self-estrangement. Stevens denies his own emotions not out of fear, but from a sincere belief in the norms of his discourse. Metaphorically, he lives inside an invisible prison—not one built by his master, but one he has constructed himself from within.
Findings and Conclusion
Within the discourse that shapes the butler’s identity, reality becomes distorted; Stevens perceives and expresses his deepest emotions through this very distortion. He even takes pride in his position, envisioning his office as a kind of military operations room and likening his role as a butler to that of a general commanding his troops. He sees himself as orchestrating the household staff with strategic precision, yet from an external perspective, this “operations room” resembles nothing more than a cell.
Stevens refuses to embrace the emerging discourse on democracy and equality, clinging instead to the belief that his aristocratic master deserves unconditional and selfless service. He regards the superiority of the aristocracy and the “master/servant” hierarchy as natural and unquestionable. Rather than challenging the structural inequality inherent in that hierarchy, he internalizes it, reframing it as a moral opposition between the “good butler” and the “ordinary butler.” His private room—appearing to an outside observer as an isolated cell—becomes, in his mind, the command center of a noble mission. The image of the prison cell thus serves as a metaphor for the condition of servants like Stevens, who remain trapped within the ideological framework of butlership, unaware—or unwilling to admit—their own captivity.