Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 11:30:54 EST From: Gabriel.Ash.1-AT-nd.edu (Gabriel Ash) Subject: Re: A brief re-introduciton of sort On Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:43:58 -0700 (MST) you wrote: > >Hi All, >interesting concept: What if the term 'post-structuralist' is actually a >misnomer which somehow misses the point of what is actually a >post-phenomenological impetus which occures not only in Foucault, but in >Deleuze and Guattari, Derrida and Lyotard as well? There's at least an >interesting line to be followed within the history of the the critique of >subjectivity where the phenomenological subject begins to unfold from >itself. This line can be traced from Husserl, where subjectivity still >maintains a unity; to Levinas' bifurcation of subjectivity into the same >and the other; and then to Merleau-Ponty's slight declination of the >self/other pair from one another; and finally on to Foucault et al where >subjectivity gets fragmented to dofferent degrees, and with different >effects, according to an historic, machinic, and semiotic force. Anyway, >it might be a concept that's fun to play with. >Flannon I agree that post-structuralism is a not so useful badge. Phenomenology is more important a legacy because of the insistance of the non-discursive practices (which do not really exist as such for structuralism). Especially the importance of the visual. Reading F. as someone who doesn't believe in existence and "believes" that the world is a side-effect of language seems to be a gesture of analytical philosophy. However, telling a story about the gradual desintegration of subjectivity may be a problematic project in its own way. Was it ever integrated? Maybe we should talk about different forms of "coding". I am especially perplexed by the question of semiotics, and perhaps someone would want to comment on that. Semiotic analysis (and structuralism) begins with the difference between the signifier and the signified, (or the sign and the mind-image of the refferent - it seems there is a constant blurring between what De Saussure called signified and the image of the refferent). There is a repeated claim that the signified is never present, that we are caught in the play of the signifier. As far as I understand F. he opposed this whole notion of signification. he spoke of language as always describing a space, a set of objects ands speakers. The question for him would be how is this space articulated in relation to other spaces, made through non signifying practices, and not how does words hook on objects. I think this is where the question of the subject comes in, because in semiotics, the subject is the privileged place required for the signifying process (the mental image), in a post-structuralist like Lacan, the subject is an effect of the split between signifier and signified (the barred subject). But for F. signification (and the signifier) is a proprety of language itself, like grammer. So that subjuctivity is not a linguistic phenomenon; it involves language, but it involves many other things. I am getting too lenghty so let me stop here . -------------- Gabriel Ash Notre-Dame -------------- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005