|
Discourse is clearly a socio-political reality, otherwise, what
are the newspapers full of ? But, it also seems like a separate
world, though it is influential and understandabler:-
- There is no direct connection to anything else.
- other types of thoughts, events, objects and so on ARE referred
to and used in discourse
- but, these events and objects are transformed when they are
taken into discourse
- it seems that actions are not discursive - for example "I
think I will sow some seeds in the garden" or "I will
go and do some shopping" are not discursive statements, they
are actioon statements.
- Events are not discursive, and nor are physical reality and
objects (it is water, it's raining) are not discursive (whereas
'climate change' is discursive)
In general, discourse seems to be dominant and over-ride the other
modes, in a subtle way which is too pervasive to be measured. We
are born into discursive postures, and the discourse uses us to
develop itself
(and this is essentially a description
of the eastern system of karma, purusha and prakriti)
However, beginning with Foucault in "The Archaeology of Knowledge",
a new concept of the dispositive was developed to bring the physical
plane, events and the discursive into one system. The following
description is derived from Jaeger, 2001, pp 39-41
|
|
ther are non-discursive societal practices which
play a part in forming objects/manifestations |
|
|
Foucault subordinated language, and therefore
also linguistics, to thought, and makes then into a department
of the cultural sciences |
|
|
He saw a co-existence of discourse and reality
and/or objects |
|
|
The dispositive is a net hung
between these elements and/or which links them together |
|
|
However, he is unable to say what concrete or
empirical relationships there are between the things which are
linked together by the dispositive |
|
|
The dispositive arrives as follows |
|
|
 |
An urgency arises |
 |
So an existing dispositive becomes precarious |
 |
So a need to act results |
 |
The social and hegemonial forces which are
confronted with the urgency assemble the elements which
they can obtain in order to counter this urgency |
 |
That is speech, people, knives, cannons,
institutions, etc. to counter it |
 |
Everything is done in order to 'mend the
leaks' - the urgency which has arisen |
 |
These elements are only connected by serving
a common end (to fend off the urgency) |
 |
The 'inner bond' which might tie them together
does not become evident (it is invisible) |
 |
However, the bond exists in the form of
sensory human activity which mediates between subject
and object, the social worlds and 'objective' realms |
 |
Jaeger continues (ibid, p. 45) -"I
have the impression that the difficulties in the determination
of the dispositive are related to a failure to determine
the mediation between discourse (what is said /what has
been said), non-discursive practices (activities) and
manifestations (products / objects)." |
|
However, if we sate that it is knowledge which is the link
between all these:-
- manifestations are seen as materialisations or activities
of knowledge (that is, everything in manifestation has been
either designed by a human being on the basis of their knowledge,
or it contains DNA, which seems to act in a similar way to a design)
- non-discursive practices are seen as the active implementation
of knowledge (that is, you know what you want to do, and you
transform this knowledge into action, or an event)
- and discourse is essentially a flow of knowledge between
people and through time
then the dispositive is the net connecting these different
operations of knowledge, and Jaeger proposes that this solves
many of the problems I have mentioned above. These are all mediated
by the human subjects who link together discourse and reality.
Jaeger claims that discourse is part of the dispositive, which
is not as caught up in the verbal - he has gone back a step to the
consciousness (the place where human thought and knowledge are stored
- including affects, ways of seeing, and so on) which provides the
basis for the shaping of reality by work.
This is interesting, but does the dispositive have practical uses
? There are also other similar all-embracing concepts such as soul,
anima mundi, the mental plane, and prakriti from different world
traditions. Does the dispositive gain over these ?
The dispositive may be useful in its implication that discourse,
objects and events are deeply intertwined, and bound together by
varieties of knowledge. Examining their relationships may be fruitful.
I try to use the dispositive as a p=ractical technique on
my food policy pages
|