Quote: "Thus in a philosophy of the founding subject, in a philosophy of originary experience, and in a philosophy of universal mediation alike, discourse is no more than a play, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second case, and of exchange in the third, and this exchange, this reading, this writing never put anything at stake except signs" (Foucault 1470).
Question: Foucault lists three philosophies of discourse (theories of rhetoric) that, to him, obscure the reality of discourse: the founding subject, that states discourse happens when a rhetor uses language for his own aims; the originating experience, that states discourse happens when meanings already in the world are put into language by a rhetor; and the universal mediation, that states discourse is created by the unfolding of events that leads to an exchange and uncovering of meanings.
Do any of these three philosophies of discourse challenged by Foucault correspond to any of the rhetorical theorists we have learned about thus far? What theorists (if any) might challenge Foucault by saying that rhetoric, contrary to Foucault's claim, has little to do with knowledge and everything to do with signs/language?
I think the part from Foucault's quote that says "discourse is no more than a play" is very interesting. It sounds as though he is basically saying that discourse is rehearsed, and that it can be easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorician Foucault reminded me of was a bit of John Locke in his theoretical idea that rhetoric is subjective and relative upon situation/signal user. The autonomy (sorta) that we are given is based upon society norms which in turn will influence and make one's understanding of something relative to their environments and regular/normal discourse.
ReplyDelete