As I was reading Foucault's analysis of the concept of an author, I couldn't help but think of Barthes's essay on The Death of the Author, which states many of the same ideas about the disappearance of the author in post modern critique. Foucault's essay, however, seems much more self-aware to me in regards to its existence as a text with an author. In addition to the obvious presence of a second ego (of Foucault, through his use of the pronoun I throughout the text), Foucault seems to be requesting, from the reader, some sort of departure from the springboard he has laid down in the theory of the author-function in which he differentiates between the "initiators of discursive practices" and the "founders of sciences". In the final pages of the essay, Foucault seems to be claiming some of his ideas as coming from a sort of "initiator of discursive practices" by posing many questions that undoubtedly require further analysis of the ideas posited in the essay. To me, however, his text seems like an interesting hybrid of the initiators of which he speaks (Saussure, Freud, etc). Throughout the essay, Foucault's ideas rest pretty heavily on a foundation laid down by other authors. Does this still allow him to be an initiator of discursive practice? Or does one's ideas have to be completely original to be considered worthy of such a well respected author-function? Does the text lose a sort of "aura" by losing the author? (In this way can it be connected to the effects of modern reproducibility on visual art according to Benjamin?)
Also I would like to speak a bit about identifying myths in our society today. Barthes stated some very interesting examples, but I would like to find some that relate to us more intimately as a group and break them apart into their various components.
Also, it might be worth talking about what exactly constitutes a "work" according to Foucault. Barthes once wrote about the difference between a work and a text. Is anyone familiar with this? If so, how does it pertain to Foucault's analysis of the disappearance of the author?
In response to the question about originality, Einstein said that "the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" (I'm aware of the ironic influence of the genius myth here). In other words, what we call an original idea is in fact a mixing and scrambling of other influences, possibly along with new thoughts arising from this convergence. Foucault problematizes the notion of an author as the sole source of a text, one whose discourses are not affected by a particular cultural logic or by the mythologies of his/her predecessors and contemporaries. Perhaps because he is trying to make this point, he is hyperaware of his own temptation to fall into the trap of the socially established author. If this is the case, it's possible that other writers/artists have just as much of a conglomeration of sources in their works, but they don't acknowledge it. Then, there's no "initiator of discursive practices," but rather a collaborative evolution of them.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that there's a correlation between what is "common sense" or "goes without saying"--what Barthes says is naturalized--and what can stand on its own without being cited. Foucault acknowledges that giving a source's name within a text serves as a "guarantee of their authenticity" (125). This also relates to what Foucault says about science. Today, a science or math textbook requires few sources because it is considered common knowledge (in fact, when I was in high school and teachers discussed plagiarism, they explained that we need to cite everything that didn't fall under "common knowledge"). In contrast, during the middle ages, science was newer and less trusted, whereas a lot of literature was still considered religious and therefore beyond the realm of questioning and skepticism.
Also, about modern myths: the first type that comes to mind is the naturalization of gender differences.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most obvious and infuriating illustrations of this can be found in recent "psychology" books and magazines. Here is an article from Psychology Today about how "chimps get payed for sex." It basically says everything but that prostitution is inevitable.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/basic-instincts/200907/prostitution-gold-digging-or-just-dinner-date-how-chimps-get-paid-sex
To share a personal example, the other day, my friend and I saw a women's cosmetics commercial, and I commented that women are expected to work harder toward their appearances than men in our society. Said friend responded that this isn't a problem, since women are genetically programmed to pay attention to their looks and men are genetically programmed to be the ones looking. This is a common American notion (if you've seen a copy of Cosmo or any "women's" magazine--not to mention Playboy and such--and how they subtly write the identities of their readership, you know what I mean). Anthropology tells us, though, that other cultures have done this differently (Margaret Mead, for example, wrote in Male and Female that in many "primitive" societies she studied the men are the ones who wear jewelry). As for an analysis of one way these gender dynamics are created, I found Barthes' article on striptease (page 84 of Mythologies) very enlightening.
If you've read this far, this article may also interest you--it's about the controversy over whether or not boys are better than girls at math and science. Until very recently, this has been taken for granted--hence Lawrence Summers, then President of Harvard and Obama's economic advisor, confirming that women aren't as good at math. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182655.htm
This is something I feel passionately about; if it seems irrelevant, just ignore it.