Foucault has clearly described the production of discourse, with its three external rules of exclusion: prohibition, division and rejection, will to truth. The five internal rules that which a discourse is controlled by: the events and chance happenings, the author, disciplines, rarefaction among speakers, and the fellowships of discourse. But Foucault leaves an interesting note after all of the rules have been explained. “It is in these taboos, these barriers, thresholds, and limits were deliberately disposed in order, at least partly, to master and control the great proliferation of discourse, in such a way as to relieve its richness of its most dangerous element; to organize its disorder so as to skate round its most uncontrollable aspects. It is as though people had wanted to efface all trace of its irruption into the activity of our thought and language.”
The depth of Foucault’s research into discourse may show how fundamentality important the concept of the production of discourse is if one wants to get a better understanding of themselves. But before one can gain any grasp of who they are, Foucault shows that one must also know the history, as he uses the word, of discourse to better understand why the rules of discourse exists as they do. Also important then, is the understanding of one’s relationship with discourse and how rules of discourse have, in many ways shaped who we are.
1 comment:
JP: While your external (and painfully uncited) research may have gotten you to some more interesting facets of Foucault's examinations of discourse, you have yet to address the question. For someone who quotes Nietzsche in an earlier, much more open-ended question, I would think you would have very definite views on the author-function and its purpose.
While, I strongly encourage you to continue to incorporate additional research, more on-point (and on time) responses will serve you better in the future.
Post a Comment