RE: if -- And and and and

Glen - do i read you right in taking this to be a challenge to Arianna about the position she has taken up in regard to 'the author'?
If yes, then perhaps it would be productive interrogate what Foucault had to say on it - because it's his words (in translation) she's using when she
says 'What difference does it make who is speaking?' (Does this make a difference, by the way?)
In any case, it might be instructive to have a look at what Foucault has said about it - it's in Rabinow (1984) 'The Foucault Reader' pp. 101-120, but
also, in a different translation, in Bouchard (1977) 'Michel Foucault: Language, counter-memory and practice' pp. 113-138.

I'm sure that Arianna is more than capable of answering for herself, I'm responding because i'd like to see a discussion about this on the list?who's
for it?


Why bother putting your name to this email? (Or was that an accident, if it
doesn't matter who is speaking?)
It doesn't make much 'difference', but it does constitute much of a
'sameness' due to 'difference'. As soon as we discard authorship then we
also discard the associated responsibility. Heaps of different thinkers
create some theory to do with the In/Out of the social (binary logic), I
can't see how the social can operate (best for 'you' as an individual
subject) without distinction, without definition, without authorship... you
can't have it both ways ethical responsibility without having something able
to be accountable. Slander?

What do you mean by 'dead man'? Who is this person? God? Sounds like you are
describing God... who is beyond reproach?

When ascertaining 'saintliness', was it not actually uncovering the
possibility of the Christians investing themselves into the concept of
'Saint So-and-so'? Trying to discover its truth value?
But my main issue with all this is:
Where do you draw the line between what should be taken into account and
what shouldn't be, when trying to figure out whether a text is not merely
worthy of being read, but worthy of being believed?


> The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The
> writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.
> The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author
> only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations
> we force texts to undergo.
> In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses
> similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the
> value of a text by its author's saintliness.
> What difference does it make who is speaking?

Partial thread listing: