Good god, if you're not in cultural studies I am SERIOUSLY impressed that you read that!!
Well what you just said (about fiction reflecting bits of society in a refracted way) is what a lot of people believe - but that's still a matter of interpretation, of finding something 'under' the language, what it's saying despite itself, if you know what I mean. I'm kind of suspicious of that - I guess it's a suspicion born of years as a psychiatric patient (long story). Whenever you say something, the psychiatrist asks, But what does that mean? What is the hidden depth of that statement you just made? Whereas the theories I work with (discourse theories) say that language itself is the thing - that there's nothing under or inside it, language itself is what we live in/use/live according to. (Actually discourse has material aspects more than language itself, like the technology of the internet, websites, the psychiatrist's office, a hardback book, etc).
I'll give an example - something i've discovered so far. In canon, race is unspoken. Nobody notices that all the main characters are white and G is black. That's part of a liberal discourse where it's not done to notice race, because it's not supposed to have any effect or meaning. In fanon, race and color are spoken all the time. G is frequently described as 'Black', 'African American', 'dark-skinned', 'dark', etc. What does that mean? I wouldn't presume to say - I wouldn't seek some kind of meaning 'under' or 'inside' the words (whereas a sociologist might try). I'd situate them in patterns of discourse - the fact we are reading text not looking at a screen, the literary effect of introducing a character before they are named for the kind of dramatic irony that works in fandom - we know who the author is talking about before the characters do. What is does is produce an effect: it makes visible something that was unspoken, because technology changes discourse.
And these things fall into patterns. There are certain things that are speakable on LJ, unspeakable on ff.net, or only speakable with heavy censure. What routes is it possible for G to take in fandom, and in what ways are S and D constructed relational to him? In canon, they don't turn evil in response - that's not part of the discourse of mainstream TV - in fandom they sometimes do (and whether fic is praised or censured for that depends on lots of other things which I'm trying to map).
lol. I did English Lit and Women's Studies at uni, so I guess Cultural Studies kind of aligns with that, but what very little I did know I've completely forgotten in the 4 years since Graduating. It's something I find really interesting though.
I guess it's coming from the Eng Lit background that's making me struggle with this concept, because my whole brain is wired to look for the hidden meaning in EVERYTHING.
I think I'm struggling to understand where discourse ends and 'meaning' begins. So, in the example you've given, Gordon's race isn't mentioned in the show because liberal discourse says OMGCOLOURDON'TTOUCH. Isn't that meaning? That is the show reflecting real life, in a way, isn't it? I think I'm still confusing the terms somewhat. And I'm now also using you as my personal teacher/lecturer, so apologies for that? It is really fascinating to me though.
Heh heh, no probs. Academia may be the only thing I'm good at!
Well, it's basically that discourse and reality are the same thing. There's no 'reality' outside what we construct through discourse - unless one believes in God, essential meaning to the universe/etc. (I have no idea if there's such thing as an essential reality outside discourse - wouldn't touch that one with a bargepole!) So in a sense there's no difference between discourse and meaning - but what discourse theorists don't do is look UNDER or INSIDE the text for some hidden meaning. Rather we look at surfaces, and look for patterns, and where the edges of the discourse are. Foucault is the philosopher that started all this in a book called 'The Order of Things'. This is a not-bad one paragraph summary:
He was trying to find out the conditions of knowledge in general. More modestly, I'm trying to find out the conditions of certain discursive formations (race, authorship, incest).
Then in 1970 Edward Said used this theory to write 'Orientalism' which is was really popularized Foucault. Said said that the ways that people in the Western half of the world think about the Eastern part fall into a number of predictable patterns, that can be mapped, and in this way, the field of Orientalism is created, and this is the way the Orient exists for the West. He was readier than Foucault to concede a reality outside this, but he said that was not what his project was concerned with (though he sometimes contradicted himself.) Here he is talking about Orientalism:
Well what you just said (about fiction reflecting bits of society in a refracted way) is what a lot of people believe - but that's still a matter of interpretation, of finding something 'under' the language, what it's saying despite itself, if you know what I mean. I'm kind of suspicious of that - I guess it's a suspicion born of years as a psychiatric patient (long story). Whenever you say something, the psychiatrist asks, But what does that mean? What is the hidden depth of that statement you just made? Whereas the theories I work with (discourse theories) say that language itself is the thing - that there's nothing under or inside it, language itself is what we live in/use/live according to. (Actually discourse has material aspects more than language itself, like the technology of the internet, websites, the psychiatrist's office, a hardback book, etc).
I'll give an example - something i've discovered so far. In canon, race is unspoken. Nobody notices that all the main characters are white and G is black. That's part of a liberal discourse where it's not done to notice race, because it's not supposed to have any effect or meaning. In fanon, race and color are spoken all the time. G is frequently described as 'Black', 'African American', 'dark-skinned', 'dark', etc. What does that mean? I wouldn't presume to say - I wouldn't seek some kind of meaning 'under' or 'inside' the words (whereas a sociologist might try). I'd situate them in patterns of discourse - the fact we are reading text not looking at a screen, the literary effect of introducing a character before they are named for the kind of dramatic irony that works in fandom - we know who the author is talking about before the characters do. What is does is produce an effect: it makes visible something that was unspoken, because technology changes discourse.
And these things fall into patterns. There are certain things that are speakable on LJ, unspeakable on ff.net, or only speakable with heavy censure. What routes is it possible for G to take in fandom, and in what ways are S and D constructed relational to him? In canon, they don't turn evil in response - that's not part of the discourse of mainstream TV - in fandom they sometimes do (and whether fic is praised or censured for that depends on lots of other things which I'm trying to map).
Reply
I guess it's coming from the Eng Lit background that's making me struggle with this concept, because my whole brain is wired to look for the hidden meaning in EVERYTHING.
I think I'm struggling to understand where discourse ends and 'meaning' begins. So, in the example you've given, Gordon's race isn't mentioned in the show because liberal discourse says OMGCOLOURDON'TTOUCH. Isn't that meaning? That is the show reflecting real life, in a way, isn't it? I think I'm still confusing the terms somewhat. And I'm now also using you as my personal teacher/lecturer, so apologies for that? It is really fascinating to me though.
Reply
Well, it's basically that discourse and reality are the same thing. There's no 'reality' outside what we construct through discourse - unless one believes in God, essential meaning to the universe/etc. (I have no idea if there's such thing as an essential reality outside discourse - wouldn't touch that one with a bargepole!) So in a sense there's no difference between discourse and meaning - but what discourse theorists don't do is look UNDER or INSIDE the text for some hidden meaning. Rather we look at surfaces, and look for patterns, and
where the edges of the discourse are. Foucault is the philosopher that started all this in a book called 'The Order of Things'. This is a not-bad one paragraph summary:
http://voices.yahoo.com/explaining-foucaults-order-things-6703192.html?cat=37
He was trying to find out the conditions of knowledge in general. More modestly, I'm trying to find out the conditions of certain discursive formations (race, authorship, incest).
Then in 1970 Edward Said used this theory to write 'Orientalism' which is was really popularized Foucault. Said said that the ways that people in the Western half of the world think about the Eastern part fall into a number of predictable patterns, that can be mapped, and in this way, the field of Orientalism is created, and this is the way the Orient exists for the West. He was readier than Foucault to concede a reality outside this, but he said that was not what his project was concerned with (though he sometimes contradicted himself.) Here he is talking about Orientalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw
Reply
Leave a comment