Here's my Blog post from last night on the class blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The section on “the method of interpretation” caught me with the words “master of truth.” As we well know and (I believe) have discussed in this online forum “history is written by the victors.” The victors are, naturally, those in power. Foucault writes “With regard to the confession his [the listener’s] power was not only to demand it before it was made, or decide what was to follow after it, but also to constitute a discourse of truth on the basis of its decipherment” (67).
While studying literary theory we are studying interpretations of interpretations. Redundant, I know. However, I think this is important to remember. Here we are reading Foucault who is interpreting the history of sexuality. Then we, as a class, interpret what he is saying. We are all interpreting through different lenses; the lens of our individual truth or reality.
Could this idea of “the master of truth” and the “hermeneutic function” help to decide what is considered literature in our 21st century Western thought? If there is enough discourse, enough interpretations made on a piece of work perhaps then we could consider it literature? I think of this because I feel like in this day and age just about anyone can write a book. If I had a nickel for everyone in my life who has told me they were writing a book I’d have at least five bucks. (haha). So what, though? Just because someone wrote down a story or their thoughts can this be considered literature?
Confession, according to Foucault, “could only reach completion in the one who assimilated and recorded it” (66). Can we apply this to literature by saying a piece of work can only truly be completed or rather reach a state of true literature through those who verify it as such?
Posts
