Jill,
Thanks for the references. I will look them up. I only subscribe to lists on
the internet that have something that I want to learn more about. There is
such a body of work and information regarding this, that and in-between... I
get frustrated sometimes. I seem to normally approach concepts backwards, so
I appreciate list members suggesting what I should read (besides
'everything':).
Thankyou,
Glen.
PS My take on 'the author' is to do with authenticity, or rather the
authority of authority. Which is not a problem whilst conversation takes
place within a particular social space or discourse (following a certain
logic...), but what about the other times? You can see how this ties in with
the above (and issues surrounding the internet). I should just shoosh first
and head off to my library...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jill Molan" <Jill.Molan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "foucault list" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: 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 listwho's
> for it?
> cheers
> Jill
>
> Arianna,
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Glen.
>
> > 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
> are
> > 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
> methods
> > 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?
>
>
>
>
Thanks for the references. I will look them up. I only subscribe to lists on
the internet that have something that I want to learn more about. There is
such a body of work and information regarding this, that and in-between... I
get frustrated sometimes. I seem to normally approach concepts backwards, so
I appreciate list members suggesting what I should read (besides
'everything':).
Thankyou,
Glen.
PS My take on 'the author' is to do with authenticity, or rather the
authority of authority. Which is not a problem whilst conversation takes
place within a particular social space or discourse (following a certain
logic...), but what about the other times? You can see how this ties in with
the above (and issues surrounding the internet). I should just shoosh first
and head off to my library...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jill Molan" <Jill.Molan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "foucault list" <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: 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 listwho's
> for it?
> cheers
> Jill
>
> Arianna,
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Glen.
>
> > 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
> are
> > 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
> methods
> > 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?
>
>
>
>