What's in a name?
It was interesting to see the general structuralist principles laid out by Barthes applied to different things by Focault. In the same way that Barthes broke down the meaning meanings and different "signifieds" of an image, so did Focault break down a name.
Particularly, Focault was interested in names of authors and what their meaning really becomes. His argument was that author's names are no longer representative of a person, but rather their body of work. For example, the signifier Stephen King does not have the signified of a middle-aged man in Maine, but has the signified of the associated horror and fantasy novels and short stories he has written.
In thinking about this, I realized that Focault has quite a valid point, and not just when it comes to authors of literature. For myself, at least, when I hear the name of nearly any public figure, my mind immediately goes to what they've created, produced, or are generally known for. I don't hear the name Martin Scorsese and think of a nasally-voiced, bushy-browed New Yorker, I think of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York, etc.
But is anything lost by removing the person from the signified? Focault almost makes it sound noble, as he writes "...the function of an author is to characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourses within a society." We make authors larger than life, just through the fact or recognizing them for their work rather than who they are.
Yet the mere act of publishing shows that a person is willing to strip themselves of original identity and be known only for their works. Maybe it's just a vicious cycle at this point, but if an author cares enough about a certain topic or piece they wrote, it seems natural that they would want to spread that message. Should it get to the point of changing the meaning of their name, I would think they would be glad as it almost serves as free advertising for the work they wish to spread.
No comments:
Post a Comment