For Michel
Foucault, it is important to be aware of the relation between the author and text. Moreover, it is important to know about author figure. Foucault asks “What
does
it
matter
who
is
speaking?” accordingly and his question conveys the main
ethical
principles
of
écriture-meaning
for instant
writings. There are several rules for instant writings; therefore, Foucault splits his assumption into two categories. The first category is related with designing that he believes writing should be “freed” from the need to “express” and should able to agent for only its own self which refers to writing expands in a similar ways that it conflicts its own concepts of rules, then it vanishes during the establishment of space upon writing. His second category is related with connection between the writers and their death which means that for him the concept of the author is a component of a historical continuum. It is important to know about the idea of that authorship is flexible because the texts we read take on shapes by readers in communities differently. Foucault argues about the concept of writing, which is called –simply ‘écriture’- , that writing is not interested in its aesthetic and intimations. Basically, écriture remains in transcendental custom that it helps to open more gates for authors in writing.
Michel Foucault’s objective is to demonstrate that the authors keep going to achieve a few crucial roles despite their declared death. At that moment, Foucault cannot take his eyes from the author functions. There are four author functions according to him. To begin with, first one is related to both objects of appropriations and shapes of properties. This refers to the idea of ownership of works and the idea of copyright rules. ...
... middle of paper ...
...Foucault’s writing about Karl
Marx
and
Sigmund Freud kept my attention because these philosophers differ from each other. For example, Sigmund Freud brought probabilities
and
constructions
of
other
texts. On the other hand; Karl Marx believes that one author is no
more
than
the
author
of
his
own
work. They are both founders of the discursivity. For example Sigmund Freud believes that the distinctions are derived from psychoanalytical approach. Both philosophers’ discourses are practicable to the other fields; however, it is not say to make a novel practicable for another discourse that in short we cannot make such a thing to apply. At that issue, Michel Foucault points out that the awareness of the discourse is not identical but they are specific to the culture so they alters accordingly to the cultures and each community has its own comprehension of the discourse.
tracing the rise of the prison system in France and the rise of other coercive
This is precisely revisited and commented on by Butler (1997:05). Foucault in his influential work has not only echoed the idea of ideology making people ‘subjects’, but also further tied the ideology and power to identity. Under Foucault’s account, the enactment of power is permeating and it is power and dominant discourses that produce identities. By viewing social arrangements and practices (ideology) determining and producing the subjects, Foucault went on to even remove and erase the subjects by shifting from examining the process of identification to the discourse that forms subjectivity. This model implies the inscription of subjects’ identities to the dominant discourses available and this process is to reproduce social inequalities.
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
This is another artwork from Jean Michel Basquiat. This artwork represents a black skull scarred with red rivulets, pitted with angry eyes, gnashing its teeth, against a blue graffiti wall on which someone has been doing their sums. Perhaps the street mathematician was calculating how many Africans died on slave ships in the 18th century, or how many people lived in slavery in America, or how many young black men have been killed by police guns in the last few years. This is the real definition of this
To understand Foucault’s point of view one must grasp Foucault’s basic principals in “Panopticism”. These principles are centered on the idea of control, which in turn leads to power. When in control an individual/governing body
His writings, as well as his political actions, lectures and travels, have had an undeniable influence on modern society, from sociological studies to international relations and even business management . Foucault has the merit of having deconstructed power and built a new framework for power’s analysis. The following paper aims to analyze his conception
I began by talking about historical culture, and how a culture tries to teach future societies about their past atrocities and violences committed towards them. I connected this to a present day example of the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide on the UCSB campus. Annually members of the university remember the genocide in order to teach the new generation of students about the atrocities the Armenians faced in hope that by teaching others about their past it will not allow similar violences in the future. I tied this into Foucault’s quote about society needing “historical awareness of our present circumstance.” Mike and I also discussed Foucault’s “The Subject and Power and Freire's “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Foucault talks about the subject and says that your identity can lead you to becoming a subject. The identity of a person represents their beliefs, religion, customs, rituals and behaviors. These aspects are defined as culture, therefore one's culture allows them to be a subject. Freire makes the point of the oppression of the subject, and how the oppressed are the only ones to change the status of their oppression. The oppressors only oppress the oppressed more by trying to free them. The two theories added together indicates that the role of culture both produces global violence but culture also allows you to rise up and prevent global violence
What is power? And why do people really want to have control over it, like really. Power is not tangible, one cannot hold it in their hands and weld it like a sword. People have fought over it like if it was gold or the solution to immortality. Yet, this “power” has caused so much damage for such an intangible thing. People in history have been oppressed, killed, slaved, and more. Whether it was in the beginning of history there has always been the people who had wanted to have this power. Foucault’s “The Subject and Power” assumes that power is not wielded through oppression, but rather through the individuals who have control over it. There was Hitler, Napoleon Buonaparte, the Italians, the English, the Irish, and today in history it is the Anglo-Saxons. Hitler oppressed and killed the Jewish. Now, the Anglo-Saxons have been oppressing the Mexican Americans in the United States. The question remains though, why? Or what makes those who say they are in power, have power? What qualifies to be in control of power? Are there qualifications that
Michel Foucault states that discourses are a verbal means of describing the world and speaking reality into being, in addition to interacting with this reality (Nye 2008:74). However, a dominating reality cannot be arbitrarily produced by just anyone, only by those that hold power within that particular society. By using their power, they create a dominant discourse supported by actions, words and practices that prevent others from abiding by an alternative discourse without facing some sort of punishment be it physical abuse or social stigma. The dominant discourse differs based on culture and location, in places like Europe witchcraft is thought to be primitive with flawed logic, or no logic at all behind it. However, in places like Niger,
Barthes claims that the conventional understanding of the authorial notion attributes a central significance to the maker or producer of a text. In literary studies, the author is conventionally upheld as the origin and sole account of the text; as its final signified. Barthes considers the idea of the author to be autocratic in that it encloses the text within a single meaning and denies the importance of intertextuality (the inescapable influence of a myriad of texts and of culture on other texts). It is further stated then that texts are not produced by authors, but rather by intertextuality: other texts. The death of the author signals the liberation of the reader, who no longer has to accept subserviently that the novel has a single meaning preserved by its “author-god”. (Macey,
Does it mean that writers should have complete freedom? Or should ethical considerations limit what they say and how they say it? This essay will show that ethical considerations do limit the production of knowledge in both art and natural sciences and that such kind of limitations are present to a higher extent in the natural sciences. Ethical judgment is reasoning about the possible alternatives in a situation and judging which alternative is the most ethical one.
Foucault, in the above passage, from Of Other Spaces, is making an observation on the way that individuals exists within space. In this short paper I will attempt to delve into more detail and interpret the above paragraph using comparisons to some of the writings of Zygmunt Bauman and Nicholas Mirzoeff and some of my own understanding and reflection.
Foucault is considered to be the first, after Greeks, who after translating the Leo Spitzer’s stylistics-studies into French language in 1928 started this debate on discourse analysis. According to Foucault the discourse is basically an entity of sequences/signs, in terms of enouncements. The enouncements are the abstract constructions which, in terms of semiotics, may relate/assign a specific meaning to any sign/symbols/statements (verbal or written) or to subjects under consideration. Foucault emphasised on the discursive (theories behind events. i.e., orientalism, absurdism) and non-discursive formations (events, i.e., social/political/economic) to analyse the patterns of their themes, notions, connections and valid
Mark Seltzer wrote on The American in Bodies and Machines (1992), detailing a power-centered form of criticism conceptually dependant upon Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. According to Seltzer,
First of all, he re-defined terms ‘text’ and ‘work’, interchanging their traditional meaning, so to speak. According to his explanation, a work is a material object that can be seen and “held in the hand”, whereas a text is “a process of demonstration (…) held in language” (157). In the theory of intertextuality, a text can be compared to a fabric woven with quotations, allusions from numerous literary and cultural sources, and it ought to be considered as “a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash” (146). What comes with such an approach is also a new role of a writer. The title of Barthes' essay, The Death of the Author, expresses openly this new literary reality. It is the end of a God-like powers attributed previously to poets and writers, who can no longer be perceived as unique. An author is not an independent creator inspired by some divine forces to design worlds of his own words. The process of writing involves borrowing and mingling texts of both predecessors and contemporaries. Hence all texts are to be recognized as imitations. Work of a writer resembles an echo chamber in which borrowed vocabulary awaits to be repeated and assembled. What lies within author's reach is only the ability to “mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them” (146). In this