2003-01-05 11:40:30尚未設定
Neither Common Form nor Correspondence (2.1)
So closely bound have the consepts of expression and communication become that Deleuze and Guattari's insistence on discarding one while retaining the other might well seem quixotic. There are certainly consequences to going that route, and Deleuze and Guattari are not shy about them. A willingness is required to forego certain bedrock notions, with potentially unsettling repercussions even for anti-communicationalists.
' One can never ', Deleuze and Guattari begin, ' assign the form of expression the function of simply representing, describing, or averring a corresponding content: there is neither correspondence nor conformity ' (1987:86). So far so good. This is a restatement of the well-known critique of the referential fuction of language that is presupposed by the communicational model, and the renunciation of which unites its foes. Deleuze and Guattari join the critics, then step away. They go on to say that ' it would be an error to believe that content determines expression by causal action, even if expression is accorded the power not only to " reflect " content but to act upon it in an active way ' (1987:89)
The assertion that expression is actively formative of its content, or its 'objects' , is a constructivist strategy underpinning most contemporary anti-communicational semiotics. It performs a causal twist enabling semiotically savvy ideology critique. ' Discourse ', by this accout, constructs the subject by constructing the objects in polarity with which the subject forms. The subject 's expression is still causally linked to its content, but the nature of the link has changed. What traditionally appeared as a one-way determination of expression by a mirroring of or a moulding by its content ( the correspondence or conformity of ' representing, describing, or averring ' ) reappears as a formative polarity ( a subject-object dialectic ). It is less that the subject willfully speaks its contents than that it is spoken, unwitting, by its discursively orchestrated object-relations. If the spoken subject expresses anything, it is-- indirectly--its own circuitious determination: the anything-but-transparent dialetic of its orchestrated formation. The ultimate content of all expression is this occulted determinative power incumbent in discourse--which the critic has the counter--power, if not political duty, to uncover.
' One can never ', Deleuze and Guattari begin, ' assign the form of expression the function of simply representing, describing, or averring a corresponding content: there is neither correspondence nor conformity ' (1987:86). So far so good. This is a restatement of the well-known critique of the referential fuction of language that is presupposed by the communicational model, and the renunciation of which unites its foes. Deleuze and Guattari join the critics, then step away. They go on to say that ' it would be an error to believe that content determines expression by causal action, even if expression is accorded the power not only to " reflect " content but to act upon it in an active way ' (1987:89)
The assertion that expression is actively formative of its content, or its 'objects' , is a constructivist strategy underpinning most contemporary anti-communicational semiotics. It performs a causal twist enabling semiotically savvy ideology critique. ' Discourse ', by this accout, constructs the subject by constructing the objects in polarity with which the subject forms. The subject 's expression is still causally linked to its content, but the nature of the link has changed. What traditionally appeared as a one-way determination of expression by a mirroring of or a moulding by its content ( the correspondence or conformity of ' representing, describing, or averring ' ) reappears as a formative polarity ( a subject-object dialectic ). It is less that the subject willfully speaks its contents than that it is spoken, unwitting, by its discursively orchestrated object-relations. If the spoken subject expresses anything, it is-- indirectly--its own circuitious determination: the anything-but-transparent dialetic of its orchestrated formation. The ultimate content of all expression is this occulted determinative power incumbent in discourse--which the critic has the counter--power, if not political duty, to uncover.