![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mini-Rant
Why can't people distinguish describing a discourse and ascribing intentionality to those taking part in the discourse? To use a completely neutral example, if I say "All welcome mats are really about chicken beheadings," I don't mean "Everyone with a welcome mat is necessarily thinking about chicken beheadings." Indeed, it may be the case that no one with a welcome mat is thinking about chicken beheadings. That doesn't eliminate the possibility that the overall welcome mat discourse is linked in some way to the cutting off of chicken heads.
To reduce a discourse to the intentions of its participants is to eliminate the entire need for the disciplines of psychology and sociology, not to mention literary analysis, critical theory, and the various interdisciplinary approaches (feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonial theory, etc.).
You are not the discourse. I am not the discourse. We aren't even the discourse. We produce the discourse, and are constituted within it. There's a difference, no?
To reduce a discourse to the intentions of its participants is to eliminate the entire need for the disciplines of psychology and sociology, not to mention literary analysis, critical theory, and the various interdisciplinary approaches (feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonial theory, etc.).
You are not the discourse. I am not the discourse. We aren't even the discourse. We produce the discourse, and are constituted within it. There's a difference, no?
no subject
to eliminate the entire need for the disciplines of psychology and sociology, not to mention literary analysis, critical theory, and the various interdisciplinary approaches (feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonial theory, etc.)
Shhhh, you'll give them more motivation!
no subject
I think it's more subtle than that. I think that with a discrete text considered as art, many of the same people might be willing to go Death of the Author. It's when we're talking about a community context of cultural artifacts considered as such that the problems with overidentification begin to arise. . . ..
Shhhh, you'll give them more motivation!
I can understand the people who would like the High Theory people to just shut up already. (I'm not going to shut up, but my mother is certainly sympathetic to their plight!) But we'd be talking about jettisoning the whole of the social sciences--not just sociology and anthropology, but economics and poli sci too. (History can stay as long as it doesn't interpret.)
And even the most hard science-y, positivistic anti-Freudian neuropsychiatry pretty much rejects intentionality as explaining anything. So the Ritalin I took in middle school? That has to go too.
no subject
no subject
We don't do it often, but we are able to attribute to texts intentionality of their own, for example when we say "That doesn't mean what you think it means."
no subject
There is also the fact that most people lose interest in a discourse if intent is not obvious and near the surface, since intent is the only thing they have any control over. People like control.
no subject
You do still have to describe a mechanism by which welcome mats are about chicken beheadings. Somewhere back along that line of mechanism there has to be an intentional act on the part of a human being - it may be an act of interpretation or it may be some other act, but somewhere there has to be an intention, otherwise you can't say the mats are 'about' chicken beheadings, there is just some coincidence involving chicken beheadings. Of course, the mere act of you having discovered that there is that coincidence may be sufficient intentional interpretation that you can make the claim.
I certainly can't disagree with anything you say there.
There is also the fact that most people lose interest in a discourse if intent is not obvious and near the surface, since intent is the only thing they have any control over. People like control.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to fundamentally, probably. It's just that Freud and Marx wrote over a hundred years ago. As much as people like control, you'd think they'd have accepted by now that they can't have it.
no subject