The One with Locke and the Scapegoat

I pondered this subject that I am about to write for quite some time because I do not fully understand John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding nor Michel Foucault's What is an author?. However, this post will examine how Locke's presentation of words and their relation to signification and how it correlates to Foucault's passage pertaining to "author-function" and overall, discourse.

Locke presents an interesting ideology that words branch from machinations of the mind of individuals. Locke's argument suggests that the idea from the mind came first, and the word in which it represents comes then, after much communal "debate" took place. As stated from a comment on another post, Locke states, "The way of learning these names also contributes to their doubtfulness" (819). This statement pertains to how we think about things and how it is different with every person.

A person will present a thought through words, and the person who is listening has to jumble his or her mind to fully comprehend what is being said. There is a "known" and an "unknown" between the two that are clashing with one another and that is where the doubt comes into play that Locke suggests. I would draw parallels to how there is a difference between an "author" and a "writer" as Foucault suggested.

"An anonymous text posted on a wall probably has a writer - but not an author" (908). This is somewhat of a stretch, but think about the correlation between Locke's formation of words and their "definitions" and Foucault's argument regarding the work of an author and one of a writer.

Foucault is almost saying that the "author" is a scapegoat to society in that there is something to acknowledge from the text that was read. An anonymous post does not serve a scapegoat. Humans have always needed a scapegoat; it is where we look for complete understanding and/or to place blame. With Locke, he mentions Nature. Words are not governed by Nature in that there is no set standard regarding signification and the formation of words that are derived from our thoughts.

Because there is no standard from Nature, there is no absolute definition. There is only what we have created from the time in the brief history of the world. Nature is essentially the scapegoat that is missing from the idea of language, words, verbiage, complete meaning, etc.