Phaedrus vs. Foucault: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Hegemonic Sexuality in Society

A major philosophical debate revolves around the power and effectiveness of writing to disseminate knowledge. Philosophers have reviewed the ability of written text to accurately transfer ideas without meaning being lost during the exchange. Philosophers such as Phaedrus argue that writing is a tool which only produces a mere imitation of wisdom. Others, such as Foucault, argue that writing is in fact a living discourse which even has the power to kill its creator.

Phaedrus and Foucault both present claims which contradict each other. The main focus of Phaedrus' argument is that writing is an "imitation" of knowledge and wisdom, due to the fact that after it is created, it dies. Phaedrus outlines the disadvantages of writing and explains that it cannot come to its own defense or provide additional clarity to a reader.

Furthermore, Phaedrus believes that because writing can be easily misinterpreted depending upon the reader and historical context, it is not a useful tool to circulate knowledge. Michel Foucault's view of writing directly contradicts Phaedrus' outline. Instead of viewing writing as latent discourse, Foucault believes that writing is actually a method to create a living, breathing dialogue.

While Phaedrus argues that the ease of misinterpretation is a debilitating quality, Foucault seems to be saying that this is actually an aspect of writing which gives it life. The possibility of multiple interpretations is a feature which animates written text. Because new meaning is gained even as it is being written, writing becomes dynamic and artificially intelligent in a way. This notion of pseudo-artificial intelligence is a direct contradiction to Phaedrus' claim that writing has no inherent meaning or benefit.

The benefits of a dynamic discourse are that a single work can spawn new dialogue or trigger a reader to develop new ideas or philosophies based on his own personal interpretation of a text. Because meaning becomes essentially limitless due to its shifting nature within written text, a single work can become responsible for perpetrating the creation of entirely new schools of thought.

Foucault also documents another power which writing possesses. Once an author has written a text, it becomes a self-sustaining living entity. As such, it has the ability to take on new meaning, propagate itself, and even destroy its author. Due to the fact that language always exceeds the intentions of the author, written text has the power to abandon its creator after it is conceived. Whatever the author intended to say at the time of writing is immediately disregarded when the text is read by another person.

An audiences' own experiences and methods of perception will give the writing an entirely new meaning. Phaedrus had originally argued that only through dialectics and speech could wisdom be given and received. Foucalt counters with the argument that not only is writing a living discourse, it also gains the ability to subsist on its own, independent of its author.

Clearly these two men have opposing views on the usefulness of writing. Phaedrus views writing as dead and without purpose, while Foucault believes writing is alive and spreads ideas in an exponential fashion. It seems as if Foucault's more modern interpretation of the benefits of written text has more evidence and examples to support it than does Phaedrus' view. Writing can indeed be a useful tool to disseminate knowledge while simultaneously encouraging new trains of thought while it is being read.