Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Literary Theory

Ed. by Jannidis, Fotis / Kindt, Tom / Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
1862-8990
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Editing a Discourse, Not a Text: Meta-Methodological Remarks on an Editorial Endeavour

Annika Rockenberger
Published Online: 2016-09-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2016-0014

Abstract

Whereas in literary studies poststructuralist theory (e. g. deconstruction, discourse analysis, broad concepts of intertextuality, ›Death of the Author‹-claims and several versions of anti-intentionalism) has had – and still has – a massive impact on practices of interpretation, until now there has been very little reception of according ideas in the domain of scholarly editing. Here, emphatic criticism regarding the ›author-centricity‹ of textual scholarship rather employed concepts like ›textual dynamics‹ or ›textual fluidity‹, as well as a positivist focus on the ›materiality‹ of singular documents.

However, within my contribution I will outline an entirely different approach by asking the question: If we actually decided to give up on author-centricity in scholarly editing and radically rejected authors’ intentions as well as authors’ single or collected works as objects of textual scholarship, could the yet unrealized project of ›editing a discourse‹ or ›discourse edition‹ work as a complement, an extension, or a replacement of traditional editions?

To make this clear: So far there is no such thing as a discourse edition, so I cannot give a description of something already in existence. Actually, I don’t want to make a case for discourse editions either, that is, my contribution will not contain any programmatic or normative claims and I will not suggest a concrete editorial concept. Instead, I will explore what questions and problems someone would be confronted with when seriously conceptualizing and/or realizing such a project. So, generally my presentation takes the shape of a heuristic (partly critical) thought experiment: the answer to a what-if-question.

One of the underlying ideas of this article is to confront contemporary edition philology (textual scholarship) – which is oriented towards categories like author, work, or text – with a ›foil‹ for contrast specifically invented for the purpose to show quite plainly that those leading categories scholarly editorial work is based on are anything but self-evident and without any alternatives but in the end rather contingent (namely upon pragmatic considerations regarding research interests and overall aims of textual scholarship). Radically different modes of editing are imaginable and an editorial practice that is interested in asking different questions and pursuing different objectives would undoubtedly look very unlike what is the common practice and rationale of contemporary scholarly editing.

I designed a meta-philological thought experiment to exemplify exactly this and I will thereby reveal a discipline-specific methodological ›blindness‹, irritate seemingly unproblematic habitual ways of thinking and thus uncover a deficit of reasoning and self-reflection in the field. Basically, I will clarify some implicit (categorial and methodological) presuppositions of scholarly editing and thereby uncover some aspects of the (invisible) normative framework underlying editorial practices.

Firstly, I will clarify what entities could be meant by the term ›discourse‹ – focussing especially on French poststructuralism (namely Michel Foucault) – in order to establish the very object of a discourse edition.

Secondly, I will ask why – for what reasons and purposes – one should engage in such an enterprise at all: Why should one favour it over conventional editions? Would discourse editions be complementary to or an extension of alternative editorial options, or would they be their replacement?

When I will have shown that a discourse edition can actually be justified as a reasonable editorial project, I will move on to the question of how such an edition might look like. Hence, I will distinguish three versions of how to conceptualize a discourse edition – a weak, a strong, and a radical version – each of which can be conceived as a complement, an extension, or a replacement of traditional editions: The weak version still focuses on author’s single or collected works but also tries to reconstruct them as ›hubs‹ within historical discourse networks, e. g. by adding extensive commentaries, contexts and source material. The strong version comes closest to Foucault’s programmatic ideas but also faces difficult questions, such as whether texts, parts of texts or statements are to be considered as the elementary units of a discourse edition, how exactly the quantity of editorially recorded objects is to be limited, and how different discourses are to be differentiated. The radical version – which turns out to be a prescriptive theoretical fiction – gives up not only on categories like ›author‹, ›work‹, etc. but also dispenses with pretty much any other concept of order exceeding ›free-floating‹ single statements, anonymous, and decontextualized.

Finally, I will briefly consider the question of how to practically realize the strong version of a discourse edition.

Keywords

textual scholarship, edition, discourse, author, Foucault, thought experiment

References

  • Allen, Graham, Intertextuality, London 2000.Google Scholar

  • Angermüller, Johannes, Nach dem Strukturalismus. Theoriediskurs und intellektuelles Feld in Frankreich, Bielefeld 2007 (Angermüller 2007a).Google Scholar

  • Angermüller, Johannes, Diskurs als Aussage und Äußerung. Die enunziative Dimension in den Diskurstheorien Michel Foucaults und Jacques Lacans, in: Ingo H. Warnke (ed.), Diskurslinguistik nach Foucault, Berlin/New York 2007, 53–80 (Angermüller 2007b).Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland, La mort de l’auteur [1967], in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 40–45 (Barthes 2002a).Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland, S/Z [1970], in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 119–346 (Barthes 2002b). [S/Z. An Essay, transl. by Richard Miller, New York 272000.]Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland, De l’œuvre au texte [1971], in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 3, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 908–916 (Barthes 2002c). [From Work to Text, in: R.B., Image, Music, Text, transl. by Stephen Heath, New York 1977, 155–164.]Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland, Texte (théorie du) [1973], in: R.B., Œuvres complètes. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Vol. 4, ed. by Éric Marty, Paris 2002, 443–459 (Barthes 2002d). [Theory of the Text, in: Robert Young (ed.), Untying the Text. A Post-Structuralist Reader, transl. by Ian McLeod, London 1981, 31–47.]Google Scholar

  • Brown, Beverly/Mark Cousins, The Linguistic Fault. The Case of Foucault’s Archaeology, in: Mark Gane (ed.), Towards a Critique of Foucault. Foucault, Lacan and the Question of Ethics, New York 2010, 33–60.Google Scholar

  • Büchner, Georg, Sämtliche Werke und Schriften. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe mit Quellendokumentation und Kommentar, ed. by Burghard Dedner, Darmstadt 2000–2013.Google Scholar

  • Bühler, Axel/Rüdiger Schmitt, Über Michel Foucaults Methodologie der Ideengeschichte, Saeculum 34 (1983), 212–225.Google Scholar

  • Burke, Sean, The Death and Return of the Author. Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida, Edinburgh 1992.Google Scholar

  • Dedner, Burghard, Quellendokumentation und Kommentar zu Büchners Geschichtsdrama ›Danton’s Tod‹. Versuch einer sachlichen Klärung und begrifflichen Vereinfachung, editio 7 (1993), 194–210.Google Scholar

  • Dreyfus, Hubert L./Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Chicago, IL 1982.Google Scholar

  • Eggert, Paul, Social Discourse or Authorial Agency. Bridging the Divide Between Editing and Theory, in: P.E./Margaret Sankey (eds.), The Editorial Gaze. Mediating Texts in Literature and the Arts, New York 1998, 97–116.Google Scholar

  • Fiske, John, Television Culture [1987], New York 22010.Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel, From Torture to Cellblock [1975], in: Sylvère Lotringer (ed.), Foucault Live: Collected Interviews 1961–1984, New York 1996, 146–149.Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel, On the Archaeology of the Sciences. Response to the Epistemology Circle [1968], in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 297–333 (Foucault 1998a).Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel, What Is an Author? [1969], in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 205–222 (Foucault 1998b).Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History [1971], in: M.F., The Essential Works. Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. by James D. Faubion, transl. by Robert Hurley, London 1998, 369–392 (Foucault 1998c).Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel, Archaeology of Knowledge [1969], transl. by A. M. Sheridan Smith, New York 2010.Google Scholar

  • Freundlieb, Dieter, Foucault and the Study of Literature, Poetics Today 16 (1995), 301–344.Google Scholar

  • Frings, Andreas/Johannes Marx, Wenn Diskurse baden gehen. Eine handlungstheoretische Fundierung der Diskursanalyse, in: Franz X. Eder (ed.), Historische Diskursanalysen. Genealogie, Theorie, Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 2006, 91–112.Google Scholar

  • Gabler, Hans Walter, The Primacy of the Document in Editing, Ecdotica 4 (2007), 197–207.Google Scholar

  • Gabler, Hans Walter, Beyond Author-Centricity in Scholarly Editing, Journal of Early Modern Studies 1 (2012), 15–35.Google Scholar

  • Greetham, David, Theories of the Text, Oxford 1999.Google Scholar

  • Haugen, Odd Einar, On the Diplomatic Turn in Editorial Philology, Presentation at The 13th International Saga Conference, Durham, 6.–12. August 2006 (unpublished).Google Scholar

  • Irwin, William, Against Intertextuality, Philosophy and Literature 28 (2004), 227–242.Google Scholar

  • Jacobs, Wilhelm G., Materie – Materialität – Geist, editio 23 (2009), 14–20.Google Scholar

  • Japp, Uwe, Der Ort des Autors in der Ordnung des Diskurses, in: Jürgen Fohrmann/Harro Müller (eds.), Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft, Frankfurt a. M. 1988, 223–234.Google Scholar

  • Kindt, Tom, Diskursanalyse, in: Rüdiger Zymner (ed.), Handbuch Gattungstheorie, Stuttgart/Weimar 2010, 227–228.Google Scholar

  • Köppe, Tilmann/Simone Winko, Neuere Literaturtheorien. Eine Einführung [2008], Stuttgart/Weimar 22013.Google Scholar

  • Kovacs, Susan, Discourse Analysis and Book History. Literary Indexing as Social Dialogue, Variants 6 (2007), 243–262.Google Scholar

  • Lamarque, Peter, The Death of the Author. An Analytical Autopsy, British Journal of Aesthetics 30 (1990), 319–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Landwehr, Achim, Historische Diskursanalyse [2008], Frankfurt a. M. 22009.Google Scholar

  • Livingston, Paisley, From Text to Work, in: Nancy Easterlin/Barbara Riebling (eds.), After Poststructuralism. Interdisciplinarity and Literary Theory, Evanston, IL 1993, 91–104.Google Scholar

  • Mailloux, Steven, Interpretative Conventions. The Reader in the Study of American Fiction, Ithaca, NY 1982.Google Scholar

  • McGann, Jerome J., A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism, Chicago, IL 1983.Google Scholar

  • McLean, Gerald, What Is a Restoration Poem? Editing a Discourse, Not an Author, Text 3 (1987), 319–346.Google Scholar

  • Miething, Christoph, Die Metaphysik des Diskurses. Anmerkungen zu Michel Foucaults ›L’ordre du discours‹, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 39 (1989), 457–464.Google Scholar

  • Mills, Sara, Discourse [1997], New York 22004.Google Scholar

  • Nehamas, Alexander, What an Author Is, Journal of Philosophy 83 (1986), 685–691.Google Scholar

  • Nehamas, Alexander, Writer, Text, Work, Author, in: Anthony J. Cascardi (ed.), Literature and the Question of Philosophy, Baltimore, MD 1987, 267–291.Google Scholar

  • Pierazzo, Elena, A Rationale of Digital Documentary Editing, Literary and Linguistic Computing 26 (2011), 463–477.Google Scholar

  • Polzer, Markus, Philipp Melanchthons Schrift ›Widder die artikel der Bawrschafft‹. Studien zu einer intertextuell und diskursanalytisch orientierten Edition, in: Jörg Jungmayr (ed.), Officina editorica, Berlin 2011, 163–184.Google Scholar

  • Popper, Karl R., On the Use and Misuse of Imaginary Experiments, Especially in Quantum Theory, in: K.R.P., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London 1959, 442–456.Google Scholar

  • Reisigl, Martin, Sprachkritische Beobachtungen zu Foucaults Diskursanalyse, in: Brigitte Kerchner/Silke Schneider (eds.), Foucault. Diskursanalyse der Politik. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden 2006, 85–103.Google Scholar

  • Rockenberger, Annika, Produktion und Drucküberlieferung der editio princeps von Sebastian Brants ›Narrenschiff‹ (Basel 1494). Eine medienhistorisch-druckanalytische Untersuchung, Frankfurt a. M. 2011.Google Scholar

  • Rockenberger, Annika/Per Röcken, Interessengeleitete Datenverarbeitung. Zur Empirie der neugermanistischen Editionsphilologie, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (eds.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 93–129.Google Scholar

  • Röcken, Per, Was ist – aus editorischer Sicht – Materialität? Versuch einer Explikation des Ausdrucks und einer sachlichen Klärung, editio 22 (2008), 22–46.Google Scholar

  • Shillingsburg, Peter, Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age. Theory and Practice, Athens, GA 1986.Google Scholar

  • Shillingsburg, Peter, Orientations to Text, editio 15 (2001), 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Shillingsburg, Peter, Forms, Ecdotica 6 (2009), 116–125.Google Scholar

  • Shillingsburg, Peter, The Semiotics of Bibliography, Textual Cultures 6 (2011), 11–25.Google Scholar

  • Spoerhase, Carlos, Autorschaft und Interpretation. Methodische Grundlagen einer philologischen Hermeneutik, Berlin/New York 2007.Google Scholar

  • Tanselle, G. Thomas, A Rationale of Textual Criticism, Philadelphia, PA 1992.Google Scholar

  • Tanselle, G. Thomas, The Varieties of Scholarly Editing, in: David Greetham (ed.), Scholarly Editing. A Guide to Research, New York 1995, 9–32.Google Scholar

  • Titzmann, Michael, Kulturelles Wissen – Diskurs – Denksystem. Zu einigen Grundbegriffen der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 99 (1989), 47–61.Google Scholar

  • Vitali-Rosati, Marcello, Digital Paratext, Editorialization, and the Very Death of the Author, in: Nadine Desrochers/Daniel Apollon (eds.), Examining Paratextual Theory and its Applications in Digital Culture, Hershey 2014, 110–127.Google Scholar

  • Vogl, Joseph, Aussage, in: Clemens Kammler (ed.), Foucault-Handbuch. Leben, Werk, Wirkung, Stuttgart/Weimar 2008, 225–227.Google Scholar

  • Zymner, Rüdiger, Gattungstheorie. Probleme und Positionen der Literaturwissenschaft, Paderborn 2003.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-09-02

Published in Print: 2016-08-01


Citation Information: Journal of Literary Theory, ISSN (Online) 1862-8990, ISSN (Print) 1862-5290, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2016-0014.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in