The contemporary rhetors from this week's readings place a premium on flux, instability, and process. Foucault explored the source of power which he describes as fluid, flowing from discourse. Herrick states that for Foucault, "power is a matter of which ideas prevail at the moment" (247). Just looking at our country's politics, this seems like a simple matter--whoever wins owns all the marbles, but it's not that simple with Foucault. Where power comes from still isn't entirely clear for me. I know that Foucault believes it originates in discourse, but then institutions are the means by which this power is dispersed. But even though "institutions are subject to power just as individuals are" (251), it seems that they often take on an identity of their own making them at least appear to have the power.
What Foucault and Derrida may have in common is the idea of hidden ideas or discourse. Foucault talks about excluded discourse, the idea that not all knowledge is available at all times: "knowledge is largely a 'set of rules (neither grammatical nor logical) to which speakers unwittingly conform'" (250). Depending on context or historical setting, some ideas are inappropriate or excluded--the knowledge is hidden. Derrida discusses this concept with his unstable meanings. He analyzed ideas that most people would see as fixed and juxtaposed them with their opposites, challenging meaning. He believed that words merely create the idea of stability, but other meanings lie beneath the surface--some unintended, but others may have an agenda. Creating meaning, for Derrida, is never finished; it revolves around the idea of social collaboration or negotiation. So as the composition of the society changes, so does the meaning attached to language.
Deb,
ReplyDeleteI really liked the connections you describe between Foucault and Derrida. In thinking about Bitzer’s constraints in a rhetorical situation, I think we see an akin process applied both by Foucault and Derrida: they set parameters in how they define things—--both things that work for the definition and against the definition. For Foucault, discourse, what norms the people bring to the table, and historical context all frame his definition of "power." For Derrida, what norms the people bring to the table, ideas of complements and opposites, and kairos all frame his characterization of meaning. Common threads between the two are the social act of language and the kairos and context of the situation. Thus, in looking at the authors’ views, for me three things seem to be responsible for the way in we conceptualize all definitions: (1) discourse (and the values people bring to the discourse); (2) the context of the situation (e.g., place, importance, relevance, etc.); and (3) the kairos of the situation (e.g., the timing of it and it’s relation to other current, past, and potential future discourses).
Cris
Enjoyed working with you this semester. Wish you the best in your studies, finishing up your degree!--Dr. Rice
ReplyDelete