Return to Saussure

Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1, James Abbott McNeill Whistler. Source: Wikipedia 1. The Authority of the Speaker In Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Movie , Mr. Bean is invited to the United States because he has been mistaken for an eminent British art expert. Asked to speak about Whistler’s Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1 , better known as Whistler’s Mother , he offers what sounds like an observation of extraordinary simplicity: the painting is impressive partly because it is large, since if it were small, hardly anyone would be able to see it: “Well, firstly, it's quite big, which is excellent. Because if it was really small, you know, microscopic, then hardly anybody would be able to see it, which would be a tremendous shame.” The audience listens and applauds. The joke depends on a simple fact: they believe they are listening to a distinguished authority. Had the same remark come from an unknown visitor, the reaction would almost certainly have been different. What...

I. The Cargo-Cult Error An aircraft arrives on a small island in the Pacific carrying goods. For the inhabitants of the village watching from the ground, the most remarkable facts are immediately visible: the aircraft, the cargo, and the sudden appearance of objects that had previously been unavailable. They therefore begin constructing a runway of their own, hoping that aircraft will return and bring them the same kind of cargo. What they reproduce is the most visible feature associated with the arrival, while what they do not see is everything that made the arrival possible—the systems of production, labour, organization, transportation, and distribution connecting the cargo to its distant point of origin. All of this remains outside the scene, in the background. Jean Baudrillard used the image of the cargo cult to illuminate a similar confusion in consumer society. What attracts attention are the visible signs of abundance, while the conditions that produced them recede from vi...

  1. What Is a Commentary? How can a commentary say something new? The question seems paradoxical. A commentary comes after something has already been said, and its relation to that earlier discourse is what makes it a commentary. Yet in The Order of Discourse , Foucault describes commentary as a procedure that makes possible the production of new statements. The commentator can say something that has not been said before, but does so by returning to a text that has already been established. This gives commentary a peculiar structure. It depends simultaneously on repetition and novelty. The earlier discourse provides the point of reference that allows the new statement to be recognized as a commentary, while the commentary itself extends, interprets, and potentially alters what can be said about that discourse. Its novelty therefore does not come from leaving the earlier text behind. It comes from returning to it. Foucault's own opening gesture in The Order of Discourse al...