In the modern discourse on the use of symbols it gets posited far too often that meaning is simply derivative. The art of deconstruction, though it has armed us with proper skepticism, has also given us the impression that the discussion is simply a matter of symbols and interpretation. This understanding fails to properly account for the relationship between the written word and the spoken word.
What if, for instance, the emergence of speech coincides with a different urge from one other than creating and understanding meaning in the world? What if speech arises as a way of inserting oneself into the world, of changing it, of demanding things from it? What if primal speech, to which we are born into and return to in the most outrageous of emotions, is one of power rather than meaning?
This is a way to suggest that Foucault can indulge in a purely…
View original post 65 more words