NAMES in Discursive Formations

Hi, Ladies...this is from my notes and thoughts from the chapter in our Foucault reader about Discursive Formations. My notes are below, followed by my own thoughts, which are bolded to distinguish them from the notes.

· Discursive formations are the organizing principles of an episteme

· Depend on three major factors: disciplines, commentary, and author

· For instance the discourse of madness:

o In our current episteme is owned by the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and medicine

o Experts in this field provide commentary

o Authors (NAMES) then become owners of the discourse: Freud, Jung, Adler, Lacan, etc.

· “These ‘names’ hold a privileged place in the discipline- the commentaries and theories they produce carry what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls ‘cultural capital’, and practitioners continually reinterpret their works, providing commentaries on commentaries ad infinitum. Whether an act or a person is considered mad or not might depend on which ‘expert’ carried the most capital.” (p. 22)

· “This combination of disciplines, commentary, and authors constitutes a kind of machine which produces the so-called ‘truth of madness’ which edits out and condemns anything that doesn’t fit within the ‘discursive formation’ at either a local level (discipline-based) or general (culture-based) level.” (p.23)

But how were these names given privilege? Group consensus? Where is the history of the "loser" or other names (somehow this makes me think of Thorndike vs. Dewey)? We "lose" what the "loser" thought- sometimes it is buried totally and other times it becomes the underdog? I don't know- just trying to apply all of this to my experience and context.

All of this reminds me of when I went to the Jewish museum in NYC about five years ago and listened to a discussion at a kiosk in the museum on abortion- which illustrated that rabis throughout the ages had deliberated, taken dispute with one another, quarreled, and disagreed about the morality/ethics of abortion. Some had been supportive, others not supportive. The kiosk traced this "controversial" issue back very far to show that it was an issue that had been around for a very long time.

I remember how much this concerned me not because I have a deep, personal investment in the abortion issue but because of the way in which abortion is talked about in contemporary society (our current episteme). Many conservative (and often religious) groups behave and "talk" as though this has always been a settled, consistently thought about idea from Judaism all the way down to Christianity. This kiosk display clearly showed that it wasn’t- not even by the very religious leaders and people that constitute these groups.

Which leads me to question- where does authority come from? How are these "NAMES" that Foucault talks about given privilege? Is it communal? Does the community decide? What is the relationship between power and authority? These "NAMES" become authoritative voices- but how? What is the process/event that allows or facilitates that within an episteme?

And...further down the rabbit hole we go...