||2018-08-12 19:54:23, 조회 : 1,700, 추천 : 399
|지금 우리는 포스트모던시대에 살고 있습니다. 수사학도 발전을 거듭하여 근대의 수사학에서|
포스트모던 수사학시대에 서있습니다. U.B.Berkeley대학 수사학과는 이 비평이론 Critical Theory의
포스트모던 수사학을 주로 연구하고 있습니다. 물론 고전수사학을 연구하면서 고전수사학과
포스트모던 수사학을 연결하는 작업을 하고 있습니다. 포스트모던 수사학의 대표적 인물 두사람을 뽑으라면
당연히 데리다와 푸꼬입니다. 저는 스탠포드대학에 데리다가 강연하러 왔을때 가서 참석한 적이 있습니다.
버클리에서 스탠포드는 그리 멀지 않습니다. 미국대학중에서 수사학과가 있는 대학은 그리 많지 않습니다.
감사하게 수사학에 대한 배움의 열망이 강렬했던 저에게 버클리는 꿈의 학당이었습니다. GTU에서 다양한 교파 교단의
설교학 교수들에게 설교학을 배우고 버클리대학에서 수사학을 배우는 완벽한 학업의 장이었습니다.
포스트모던의 비평이론 수사학이론에 생소했던 저에게 버클리 대학 박사과정 수사학세미나는 아주 도전적인
시간이었습니다. 고전수사학만이 아니고 어떻게 고전수사학이 다시 포스트모던 수사학자들에게서 회생하고 있는지를
포스트모던수사학을 설교학에 적용하는 작업도 우리의 과제중 하나입니다.
먼저는 포스트모던 수사학을 잘 이해하고 그후 설교학에 응용해야할것입니다.
아래에는 아주 간결한 포스트모던 수사학에 대한 서론적 소개를 짧게 우선 소개합니다.
Introducing postmodernism(critical), looking at a few of the “major players.” (Rheotorical Theory 10.1)
Marc C. Santos | Prof. of English | U. of Northern Colorado
Derrida: Language operates inexactly. We repress or dismiss ambiguity. But the Truth of existence lies in ambiguity–the space between the signifier and the signified (how do we come to understand difference as differance?). To repress or deny it can lead to a dangerous idealism.
So, a Derridean critique identifies the moment in which an argument/idea/institution has decided an undecideable?
Foucault: Follows up on Nietzsche’s interrogation of the relationship between truth and power (hint: there is no such thing as truth outside of power). Truth/power is instituted and sustained through institutions. Truth/Power gets normalized.
So, a Foucaultian analysis often involves tracing the history of a particular discourse, highlighting the introduction or redefinition of key terms.
Lyotard: Working through the implications of Foucault, Derrida, and others, Lyotard argues that Modernism referred to a particular progress narrative, and to Western Civilization’s investment in narratives. We always live in a (progressive/Idealist) story, one that looks to the future. This is called a reliance on meta-narrative. According to Lyotard, the (Left) investment in meta-narratives is irrevocably shaken.
Cixous: Working through Derrida, Cixous interrogated language, noting that the West had developed a phallo-logo-centric bias toward [masculine] rationality, one that dismissed [feminine] affect. She, along with theorists such as Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva sought to develop an ecriture feminine, literally translated as “woman’s writing,” that challenge the masculine tradition. This writing emphasized personal experience, emotional engagement, and bodily awareness. [See also: Roland Barthes]
Cixous was less critical than most of the other theorists on this list. Rather, she emphasized a particular kind of production–a writing of the impossible.
Lacan: Lacan’s work begins as an engagement with Freud and his notions of the unconscious, and grows to become a critique of it. It is extremely difficult to summarize any of these theorists succinctly, but Lacan presents one of the biggest challenges. I would simply say that Lacan’s work stresses two important, interrelated points. The first concerns subjectivity, or our sense of self and agency. The latter is an extremely loaded and important term for 20th century thought. I would unpack it as a series of questions: what is a person? how does a person come to be? what sustains a person’s sense of identity? what enables a person to do things? what shapes what a person thinks is possible? Lacan stressed that a person is ultimately NOT the stable, unique, coherent identity we want them to be. Rather, we are a conflict of desires–or, thinking back to Lyotard–narratives. Slavoj Zizek maps Lacan’s theories onto materialist thinking to argue that we are often a conflict of the various ideological desires projected onto us by Others (who we articulate to ourselves). Thus, to tease out the second point: for Lacan there is no Truth to guide us, we are guided–and often extremely out of touch–with our own Desire (and our principle Desire is for a Truth that guides us, for a Father (in the Freudian sense) or a Master).
So, a Lacanian or Zizekian analysis can do a couple of things. First, it can identify the Desire for mastery or production of a “Father” (often referred to as a Big Other). Second, it can trace the ways in which daily existence unconsciously reinforce the Law of the Father (or “the sense of normal” provided by the dominant social narrative).
Spivak: Spivak splices Derrida’s critique of language and signification with Foucault’s commentary on institutional power to argue that it *technically* impossible for a subaltern (someone on the margins of a particular culture/society/network) to speak. Why? Because speaking requires authority, and authority requires mastery. By the time one has mastered the master language, one has been mastered by it–they have lost the status of subaltern.