Malcolm -
Yes, the phrase: "The formation of discourse is a process structured by
rules, and its product is the structure of rules and norms which (in)form
discourse," is tautological, and I could have made my point more clearly.
You are right in thinking that "the product of discourse was(is) the set of
social effects that issue from discourse's implication in a social field
(effects of power, effects of consubstantiality, whatever)."
What I meant to get at is the impossibility of acknowleging either the
formative process, or the structure that is formed, without compromising the
epistemological permission to see the structure AND the process as the
ontologically inseparable discourse it is.
So it is definitely method we are getting at, but when I try to use that
method which approaches process and structure as an ontologically unified
thing, I end up speaking tautologically saying things like "the process of
structure is a structure of process." What I really want is to acknowledge
your point about a "a unity of elements drawn together according to some
principle or other, this principle being an effect of a methodological
choice," but then try to ground everything in "some principle or other." We
still make, act according to, change, and sustain PRINCIPLES or RULES
regardless of what methodological choice. What is important to consider is
that rules distribute value unevenly, they always privilege more power to
one agent over another.
Rules do have an ontological status that operates through the agreement in
method (shorthand) we all us use when we act socially, but we define and
redefine that status as we act, and accordingly, we participate in the
distribution of value which every rule both regulates and constitutes.
Good luck with your cold,
Tom
Yes, the phrase: "The formation of discourse is a process structured by
rules, and its product is the structure of rules and norms which (in)form
discourse," is tautological, and I could have made my point more clearly.
You are right in thinking that "the product of discourse was(is) the set of
social effects that issue from discourse's implication in a social field
(effects of power, effects of consubstantiality, whatever)."
What I meant to get at is the impossibility of acknowleging either the
formative process, or the structure that is formed, without compromising the
epistemological permission to see the structure AND the process as the
ontologically inseparable discourse it is.
So it is definitely method we are getting at, but when I try to use that
method which approaches process and structure as an ontologically unified
thing, I end up speaking tautologically saying things like "the process of
structure is a structure of process." What I really want is to acknowledge
your point about a "a unity of elements drawn together according to some
principle or other, this principle being an effect of a methodological
choice," but then try to ground everything in "some principle or other." We
still make, act according to, change, and sustain PRINCIPLES or RULES
regardless of what methodological choice. What is important to consider is
that rules distribute value unevenly, they always privilege more power to
one agent over another.
Rules do have an ontological status that operates through the agreement in
method (shorthand) we all us use when we act socially, but we define and
redefine that status as we act, and accordingly, we participate in the
distribution of value which every rule both regulates and constitutes.
Good luck with your cold,
Tom