“Knowledge is created not by the act of observing, Foucault says but through “relations… between institutions, economic and social processes behavioral patterns, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterization: and these relations are not present in the object”” (RT, 1433).
If what Foucault says is true, then how can we also fully accept the other concepts and theories about rhetoric that we have learned that state that discourse and rhetoric go hand in hand?
You're question has given me some difficulty, as I am sure there are many essay-long format ways to answer it. That being said, I will try my best to answer your question.
ReplyDeleteWhat Foucault describes is any previous theory of rhetoric is still valid. The focus of Foucault is that these notions provide context, community, and norms allowing for the ideas expressed in discourse, to be developed into new knowledge by examining the interconnections between the ideas.
I hope this answered your question, Jackie.
I believe that rhetoric and discourse differs for every theorist. His rhetoric is true but knowledge and behavioral patterns can grow the definition of rhetoric. I believe every person have their own definition of rhetoric, so who's definition is really true? Rhetoric goes hand in hand with discourse but other things are factored in to help develop what rhetoric really is.
ReplyDeleteVery loaded question but definitely one that could create a lot of positive discourse within out own little community of peers. I think there are no right or wrong answers for what rhetoric is, only ways of getting closer to what we feel is the truth. The truth is also subjective and will always change and what I might deem to be true might not be for the next person or even a person a hundred years from now.
ReplyDelete