Interpretation and Identification: Where is the difference?

Reading Foucault and Burke have brought upon many questions. After our discussion in class, and our group assignment, I have to come to notice that I don't see much of a difference between identification and interpretation, even though I feel like each author is trying to differentiate the two. While I do believe that the two have separate meanings on the outside, they mean the same thing on the inside. What I mean by that is that the are different definition wise, but after reading both theorist, I have come to understand them as one. Furthermore, I would also like to go over how writing has influenced these two terms and how it has a huge impact on how they are both the same.

In Foucault's "What is An Author," he begins his questioning of the author on page 905. The first place that I notice it is when she says, "If an individual were not an author, could we say that what he wrote, said, left behind in his papers, or what has been collected of his remarks, could be called a "work?"" Here is where I begin to think of Kenneth Burke's theory of identification. In the paper that we were given in class it says, "identification= the need to proclaim unity among difference" (Burke 182). I believe that what Foucault is doing is trying to show how we separate authors, from everyday writers, purely because their work is published or is known by many. I could refer to myself as an author if I wanted to, because I have written things. However, I don't refer to myself as an author because the concept that an author isn't just someone who writes things down has been imprinted into our minds. I would never think of the word "author" and think that every single person who has ever written something down as one. In Foucault's attempt to expose the term "author", he relates to Kenneth Burke's theory, or definition, of identification.

Foucault is attempting to proclaim unity among all writings when argues that anything can be called a work, you don't need to be an "author" for your writing to be a work. While I do believe that he is proclaiming unity among authors and everyday writers, I think that he is proclaiming more of a unity between works and writings. When I first thought of this, my mind immediately went to homework versus post it notes. Anytime I complete an assignment for my class and I go to turn it in the next day, the professor normally says something along the lines of, "OK everyone, please turn in your work here." Therefore, that is what I think of as work. When I leave a post-it note on the fridge for my roomates, I would never consider that one of my "works." There is a difference in the way that we think about work because that it has been instilled in our minds that certain things that we write constitute as work, but other things that we write do not constitute as work.

In discussing "work" and the term "author" I think that the line between interpretation and identification blurs. Even though it was two different theorists who discuss interpretation and identification, I have found many similarities among both terms that makes me believe that there isn't much of a difference between the terms. In fact, it was Burke's explanation of identification that helped me to understand Foucault's interpretation.

Kenneth Burke's definition of identification is very clear to me. While I struggle with reading Foucault, Burke's definition provides clarity to me and helps me to understand exactly what Foucault is saying. In fact, it is this exact statement by Burke that helps to me to understand much of what Foucault is saying;

"If identification= a process of confronting the implication of division= the need to proclaim unity among difference. Then identification= the need to proclaim unity among difference" (Burke, 182).

This statement is what I kept referring back to while reading "What is an author?" For example, when Foucault says, "Even when an individual has been accepted as an author we must ask still whether everything he wrote, said, or left behind is part of his work" (905). It was identification that helped me to understand Foucault's point. I might not be the term author that he is trying to interpret and identify, it is the term "work" and "author" that he is attempting to interpret. And I believe that that is where the lines are blurred. Foucault uses interpretation to attempt to define work and author. To sum up what I took away from his piece, it is that the definition of work and author is up to interpretation. Some people might consider work as long, extended, writings, and some might think of them as post-it notes on the fridge. Some people might consider authors specifically people who have been published or write for a living, and some might consider an author to be anyone who has written. Either way, there is a division in Foucault's article. This division resides in those who believe different meanings of the terms "author" and "work." It is these differences that shaped Foucault's essay.

Because these divisions exist in Foucault's essay, he attempts to blend them. He writes a complex essay on, literally, what is an author and what is a work. He discusses the different definitions of each, but in the end he is attempting to blur the lines of division between definitions. He brings into question many different aspects of both terms, but what I'm more focused on is while he was attempting to interpret these terms, he was also identifying them. But he is not identifying these terms or interpreting them, he is doing both. What I mean by that is that, based off of Burke's definition of identification, Foucault is identifying and interpreting these terms simultaneously. So that poses my question, or my discovery, of "What is the difference between interpreting and identifying?"

While there are different definitions (according to google) reading these two essay's have blurred the differences between the terms. So I guess you could say that by reading an essay trying to blur the different definitions of two terms, led me to blur the definitions between these two terms.

I can't currently relate my discovery to any readings that I have done, but in a world full of different interpretations and identifications, I can relate it to modern times. I see things on twitter all the time that are trying to blur the lines of different definitions by interpreting them and identifying them. "Rhodes Must Fall" was a great example of identifying and interpretation. I think that the main point of what I have written is covered in "Rhodes Must Fall." When you try to blend differences, you blur definitions. It is not a bad thing, it is just something that I was able to discover in these two texts and something that I noticed in "Rhodes Must Fall."

While I don't believe that it was Foucault and Burkes intention to blur the lines of definition between interpretation and identification (making them almost the same) I think that that is what I gathered form both texts. I can use this discovery to help me while interpreting/identifying tweets especially regarding politics, race, gender and sexuality. The "Rhodes Must Fall" facebook and twitter page are excellent examples of identifying and interpreting and blurring the lines of definitions.