Fouc-oh you didn't.

Michel Foucault’s “What is an author?” had to be one of the most difficult pieces I’ve ever read. The title was so simple yet so deceiving. It merely asks a simple question. But that question led to an entire essay of even more confusing questions, concepts, and ideas. The premise of this now famous essay questions the author function and his harmful role in society as someone who limits fiction. As a solution, he states we should not focus on the author (for he is already dead) but rather focus on a work’s mode of discourse.

The man who caused me grief. The smile is also deceiving. 

While it was an interesting read (more like reads since I had to read it at least five times to grasp the majority of his concepts), I cannot help thinking that his ideas and essay as a whole do not apply today. It is important to note that “What is an author?”, which was originally given as a lecture, was delivered in 1969, over forty years ago. According to Moore’s law, technology increases and changes every eighteen months. Breaking up forty years worth of change into eighteen-month increments means a lot of change, to put it simply. Just a few years ago, we were using beepers. Today in 2013, we are using smartphones, cell phones with the same capabilities as computers. In Foucault’s time, one of thefirst microchips was created. Now almost half a decade later, you would be considered technologically behind if you didn’t have your own computer.

With regards to today’s author function in comparison to Foucault’s author function, that too, would naturally change. Although there is no definite answer in exactly how much has changed, one thing that is certain is the tremendous amount of change in the modes of discourses. While Foucault was concerned with the author function and his affects on print and fiction, our concern today is no longer limited to just print. Instead, we have almost every piece of technology and its function as a mode of discourse to question.

Overall, it’s apparent that everything has changed since that lecture that itself forever changed post-structuralism. While Foucault made many interesting observations and contributed several thought-provoking ideas, in our ever-changing culture, it remains to be seen how much of his ideas can to applied to our world in the twenty-first century. 

Not Actually Lost in Translation

While the growth of the Internet has been hailed as a technological revolution with countless benefits, there have been some cries that have criticized it for its negative repercussions. One of the threats that I found to be most interesting is the supposed loss of language and communication.

            I found this to be ironic since one of the greatest attributes of the Internet and its accompanying forms is its ability to communicate quickly over great distances. In today’s Internet and online culture, there are numerous languages, some of which even I’m not too familiar with. These include your typical Internet slang in which you can shorten typically long words into shortened versions (Probably = Prolly), phrase slang which shortens entire phrases into a few letters (Shaking my head = smh), and even website specific slang which certain phrases and words are common to that website only (On the website tumblr.com, the common slang language includes using the phrase "my feels" which jokingly indicates that the user is emotionally affected by something).

            Even as a digital native, I can understand these concerns. What may be a harmless and joking butchering of the English language could have long-term repercussions for young children who are accessing computers and the Internet. While older users will understand the grammatical errors behind them (hopefully), younger users may actually take these silly abbreviations and errors as proper language.

            Aside from that concern, I don’t see much of a threat to the English language, or any language for that matter since almost every language has its own Internet version. While changes in language may seem harmful to everyday speech, rather than viewing these new Internet languages as limiting, I’d like to view them as changing and broadening our ways of thinking. Learning new languages has been proven to by mentally stimulating with many cognitive advantages, allowing our minds to interpret, understand, and create new ideas and concepts. Learning “Internet speak” shouldn’t be any different.

            I like viewing Internet languages as puzzles themselves, taking some unnecessarily long words and creating simpler forms for easy access and use. Something as long as the phrase “I see what you did there”, is now commonly shortened to “ICWUDT”. Written language is all about putting intangible concepts into the visible and understandable. Internet languages do just that, possibly to an even greater degree than “official” languages.