Return to Saussure

Aim and thesis The article will argue that, in L’ordre du discours , Foucault does not merely describe censorship or repression but uncovers a prior and more decisive level of control: the set of procedures that determine what can enter discourse at all. These mechanisms operate across institutions, disciplines, and cultural practices, and remain highly operative in contemporary society. Introduction: The Illusion of Free Speech Modern societies often present themselves as arenas of open debate, where ideas circulate freely and disagreement is resolved through argument rather than exclusion. Speech appears, at least in principle, unrestricted. Against this reassuring image, Michel Foucault advances a far more unsettling claim. In his 1970 inaugural lecture at the Collège de France, later published as L’ordre du discours ( The Order of Discourse ), he insists that discourse is never simply free. Long before ideas are exchanged or contested, societies establish procedures that det...

Introduction The 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is often recalled as a confrontation between two incompatible views of human nature. One of the most persistent points of tension concerns the notion of creativity . Chomsky insists on creativity as a defining feature of language and of the human mind, whereas Foucault appears reluctant to grant it a central explanatory role in the history of knowledge. At first sight, this contrast suggests a substantive disagreement about what creativity is. A closer examination, however, indicates that the divergence runs deeper: it concerns not a shared object viewed from different angles, but the constitution of different objects under the same term. Ferdinand de Saussure’s methodological reflections provide a precise framework for understanding how this divergence arises and why it resists resolution. Saussure and the Non-Givenness of the Object In the Course in General Linguistics , Saussure invites the reader to conside...

AI image Introduction: A Moral Drama and a Misdiagnosis The current debate around artificial intelligence in education often unfolds as a moral drama. Students who use AI are accused of bypassing effort, outsourcing thought, or hollowing out learning itself. Universities respond by tightening rules, redesigning exams, or banning tools outright. Beneath these reactions lies a deeper problem: intelligence is still being measured according to a model shaped by scarcity, even though students now operate within an environment defined by informational excess. For centuries, education developed around limited access to texts and slow circulation of knowledge. Mastery meant internalization. Writing an essay demonstrated that information had been absorbed, retained, and reproduced by an autonomous mind. This model assumed a Cartesian subject: bounded, self-sufficient, and fully present to itself. Under those conditions, authorship functioned as proof of understanding. The End of the Scarc...

SCOTUS. AI image Introduction Recent debates before the United States Supreme Court concerning sex-segregated sports have revived a question that appears, at first glance, almost self-evident: what is a woman? The persistence of this question, however, suggests that the difficulty does not arise from everyday language suddenly failing to function. Speakers of English continue to use the term without hesitation in ordinary contexts. The problem emerges instead when an inherited word from natural language is transferred into a legal system that depends on explicit, operational categories in order to adjudicate rights and obligations. This article approaches the controversy not from a legal or ethical standpoint, but from a linguistic and semiotic one. Drawing on Ferdinand de Saussure’s conception of language as an inherited social institution, together with Roland Barthes’s distinction between first-order and second-order semiotic systems, it argues that the current impasse reflects ...