"He treats author, meaning, and knowledge as a function of discourse, not as its source"
My question is how Foucault separates author, meaning, and knowledge as variables that directly or indirectly effect one another, and whether a priority is attached to one when discourse favors the perspective offered by one or the other.
The separate components of discourse being separated into the rhetor, the personal attachment of the words to the rhetor, and the context that the rhetor and the audience share understanding of creates a canon of persuasivity that Foucault values. However since there are three main factors that make up the corpus, the effectiveness of discourse seems contingent upon three separate conditions being met. This confuses the conveyance of discourse and makes the efficacy of the discourse reliant upon concurrence between variables.
No comments:
Post a Comment