Of course: look at hte cotext as Kristeva would say. Stuart suggestion
makes me think of Bakhtin. He makes a difference between monological and
dialogical texts. I suppose that any text which is preoccupied with the
conclusion has strong monological tendencies, because it's not
powerfree, as Habermas would say. Another interesting thing Bakhtin
says is that every text has several voices, every voice has its interest
and perspective. In this text there's teh voice of Foucualt, Habermas,
Bakhtin (explicitely), but also of many other texts (implicitely). They
show themself in the way i write. In ironic texts there's a real
discussion of antagonistic voices. Maybe the power of the dossier has
comething ot do with cotext, but also with the voices in it. I can
imagine that sometimes voices of very powerfull or unquestioned nature
can speak along.
erik
Stuart Elden wrote:
>Lionel
>
>I wonder if it may be more productive to think of these dossiers, not _as_
>archives, but as part of archives. In other words, how are they bound up
>within a system of law, corporate behaviour, precedent, accountability,
>business-speak, etc. etc. It would seem to be interesting to look at how
>closely the way of writing in these reports across different companies and
>events could be seen as part of a whole. Of course, an individual dossier
>might be part of the transformation of the wider archive, in this sense.
>
>It seems to think of an individual dossier as an archive is somewhat narrow
>as a way of understanding and utilising Foucault's work. In this sense these
>dossiers would be more akin to statements - see the use of the term 'nonc'
>[statement] in AK.
>
>I don't doubt that companies write a report in order to try to impose their
>version of events. I guess I would have some scepticism as to how much they
>have freedom to write it as they wish, and to create their own law. I
>suspect that they are operating to an extent within a wider context over
>which they have limited control.
>
>Just some quick thoughts - hope they are some help.
>
>Stuart
>
>
makes me think of Bakhtin. He makes a difference between monological and
dialogical texts. I suppose that any text which is preoccupied with the
conclusion has strong monological tendencies, because it's not
powerfree, as Habermas would say. Another interesting thing Bakhtin
says is that every text has several voices, every voice has its interest
and perspective. In this text there's teh voice of Foucualt, Habermas,
Bakhtin (explicitely), but also of many other texts (implicitely). They
show themself in the way i write. In ironic texts there's a real
discussion of antagonistic voices. Maybe the power of the dossier has
comething ot do with cotext, but also with the voices in it. I can
imagine that sometimes voices of very powerfull or unquestioned nature
can speak along.
erik
Stuart Elden wrote:
>Lionel
>
>I wonder if it may be more productive to think of these dossiers, not _as_
>archives, but as part of archives. In other words, how are they bound up
>within a system of law, corporate behaviour, precedent, accountability,
>business-speak, etc. etc. It would seem to be interesting to look at how
>closely the way of writing in these reports across different companies and
>events could be seen as part of a whole. Of course, an individual dossier
>might be part of the transformation of the wider archive, in this sense.
>
>It seems to think of an individual dossier as an archive is somewhat narrow
>as a way of understanding and utilising Foucault's work. In this sense these
>dossiers would be more akin to statements - see the use of the term 'nonc'
>[statement] in AK.
>
>I don't doubt that companies write a report in order to try to impose their
>version of events. I guess I would have some scepticism as to how much they
>have freedom to write it as they wish, and to create their own law. I
>suspect that they are operating to an extent within a wider context over
>which they have limited control.
>
>Just some quick thoughts - hope they are some help.
>
>Stuart
>
>