I'd wonder then. Is there discourse occurring when a blind person
asks to touch your face to find out what you look like, what about
sign language? what about then the shape of a stop sign? I'd argue
yes. I'm guessing the worry is the extension of the term discourse
beyond the traditional frame of 'text' which usually includes only
written and spoken meanings to the much broader frame of 'sign', which
includes much more. If discourse is a field of exemplified meaning,
then discourse occurs in objects, and with objects... for instance
chess is a discourse, or isn't it?

I'm pretty sure that not everyone reasons in words. I'm sure of this
because in almost all of my advanced classes classes I have my
students do a little self experiment. I give them a picture,
traditionally i have used a picture of durendart, but i don't tell
them what it is or even what is important in the picture, then i ask
them to think about that picture, to reason about what it may be. i
give them about 5 minutes. then i have them write down a description
of their mental activity, and then we share it. I do this because few
people actually have thought to experience their own thoughts, to
reflect on that experience, and ... it provides a useful basis for
both phenomenology and critical thought. In these little excercises,
i admit that most people reason about images with words, or at least
when they describe the process, the translation to words makes it
looks like words. However around 10 or so percent have the facility
with words to describe different modes of reasoning. Some use a
comparative mode, where they describe playing a slideshow in their
head and matching things. Others discuss movement and what they have
seen walking and building.

I think that I might argue that in some way de certeau's the practice
of everyday life in part argues that there is a discourse in things.
I also think that Bourdieu's concept of habitus is a discourse in
things. Baudrillard's The system of objects and Barthes The Fashion
System may also be. I have a book called the social life of things
that might also have parts of the argument but i'd need to review it.
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Terence Love wrote:

> Dear Jurgen,
>
> Just wondering can discourse be 'in' the objects? Foucault has it that
> discourse as a system of thoughts can be shaped by the objects, but
> discourse 'in' the objects seems to be a different thing. I'm aware
> that
> this is often assumed. I'm trying to clarify in my head a fine
> distinction
> between 'discourse wholly in the objects' and 'discourse undertaken by
> humans using the usual modalities of word-based thought but
> influenced by
> objects' - in the latter, the discourse is located normally rather
> than
> being object-based. In doing this, I'm not presuming that thought,
> conceptualisation and being depends on languaging.
>
> I guess whether discourse 'in' objects is possible is easy to test
> one way
> or the other. Discourse involves the facility of being able to conduct
> reasoning and prediction of future. Assuming that the discourse is
> possible
> 'in' objects presumes that this reasoning and prediction of the
> future can
> be done in ways that do not require our usual modality of discourse
> using
> words.
>
> I'm wondering how one might would make a practical test (usual
> verification
> criteria) to prove that discourse not involving or dependent on
> words can
> happen 'in' objects? Or has this already been done? If so, I'd
> welcome a
> pointer to a paper on the practical experiments.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jurgen
> Faust
> Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 2:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: actor-networks Re: Discourse on object level
>
> Thanks to all of you,... I have a lot to think again,... also about
> ants and
> billard balls...
>
> I already started to read more about actor network theory, whether
> it is
> useful or not. It will be anyway useful to expand my writing about
> design
> discourse, also about discourse on object level!
>
> Now my question expanded again:
>
> ...what terms could I use to differenciate the various discourse
> levels,...
> discourse media...the media the discourse is conveyed in?
>
> as I stated in the beginning, I am researching the discourse at the
> level of
> objects which get produced to varify other productions...
>
> but we can also see other discourse... in drawings,... images,...
> photography therefore I am also looking for an adeqaut term, I also
> proposed
>
> (discourse) conveyance matter...
>
> because textual matter which was the original term or object matter...
> seems all to be too fuzzy?
>
> Jurgen