First, however, it is worth recalli

First, however, it is worth recalling briefly the Foucauldian roots of ANT, which have been neglected as a resource for thinking about media. Foucault is important because he takes us back to the properties of discourse - not ignoring its material base in associations and interactions with objects, but in an analysis not restricted to the mere fact of those associations. Foucault was not, any more than Calion and Latour, focusing on media, but in


'The Order of Discourse' (1980)- his 1970 inaugural lecture at the College de France- he discusses some very general 'procedures' which 'permit the control of discourse'.
It is a matter of building on the principles Foucault establishes. He talks, for example, of the 'rarefaction of speaking subjects' (1980: 61). Some forms of this principle are less common (the intense ritualisation of certain speech settings, certain restricted 'societies of discourse'). But Foucault argues that, even in an apparent era of open discourse, there are hidden restrictions built into discourse's institutionalisation. In one sense Foucault's insights have already been adopted by a whole generation of discourse analysis (for example, Fairclough 1995) but there is still something exhilarating in Foucault's insistence on a materialist analysis of discourse, that undercuts the rhetoric of discourses themselves and explores the constraints built into various media discourses. By the rarefaction of speaking subjects, Foucault makes clear, he means not just the literal exclu­ sion of particular people from speaking but also 'the gestures, behaviour, circumstances, and the whole set of signs which must accompany discourse' (1980: 62). There is more than enough here to provide a provocative starting point for analysing the gestural universe of celebrity culture.
And crucially (unlike ANT) Foucault develops his materialism into close
attention to the patterns of discourse itself. 'Discourse analysis understood like this,' he writes, 'does not reveal the universality of a meaning, but brings to light the action of imposed scarcity' (1980: 73, added emphasis): that is, the scarcities, or limiting rules, that structure the surface of discourse. Such scarcity, working at the level of the categories and exclusions from which a universalising discourse is built, can be uncovered not by a generous reading of the text, but only by an investigation of its conditions of possibility. What better advice for deconstructing the mediated rhetorics of nation, society, community, 'the free world', and so on?

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pertama, namun, itu sangat berharga mengingat sebentar akar Foucauldian semut, yang telah diabaikan sebagai sumber daya untuk berpikir tentang media. Foucault penting karena ia membawa kita kembali ke sifat-sifat wacana - tidak mengabaikan basis bahan dalam Asosiasi dan interaksi dengan benda-benda, tetapi dalam analisis tidak terbatas pada fakta Asosiasi tersebut. Foucault adalah tidak, ada lebih dari Calion dan Latour, berfokus pada media, tapi dalam 'Order wacana' (1980)-1970 merupakan kuliah perdananya di College de France-ia membahas beberapa sangat umum 'prosedur' yang 'izin kontrol wacana'.It is a matter of building on the principles Foucault establishes. He talks, for example, of the 'rarefaction of speaking subjects' (1980: 61). Some forms of this principle are less common (the intense ritualisation of certain speech settings, certain restricted 'societies of discourse'). But Foucault argues that, even in an apparent era of open discourse, there are hidden restrictions built into discourse's institutionalisation. In one sense Foucault's insights have already been adopted by a whole generation of discourse analysis (for example, Fairclough 1995) but there is still something exhilarating in Foucault's insistence on a materialist analysis of discourse, that undercuts the rhetoric of discourses themselves and explores the constraints built into various media discourses. By the rarefaction of speaking subjects, Foucault makes clear, he means not just the literal exclu­ sion of particular people from speaking but also 'the gestures, behaviour, circumstances, and the whole set of signs which must accompany discourse' (1980: 62). There is more than enough here to provide a provocative starting point for analysing the gestural universe of celebrity culture.And crucially (unlike ANT) Foucault develops his materialism into closeattention to the patterns of discourse itself. 'Discourse analysis understood like this,' he writes, 'does not reveal the universality of a meaning, but brings to light the action of imposed scarcity' (1980: 73, added emphasis): that is, the scarcities, or limiting rules, that structure the surface of discourse. Such scarcity, working at the level of the categories and exclusions from which a universalising discourse is built, can be uncovered not by a generous reading of the text, but only by an investigation of its conditions of possibility. What better advice for deconstructing the mediated rhetorics of nation, society, community, 'the free world', and so on?

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Pertama, bagaimanapun, itu sangat berharga mengingat sebentar akar Foucauldian dari ANT, yang telah diabaikan sebagai sumber daya untuk berpikir tentang media. Foucault penting karena ia membawa kita kembali ke sifat wacana - tidak mengabaikan basis materialnya dalam asosiasi dan interaksi dengan objek, tetapi dalam analisis tidak terbatas pada fakta dari asosiasi tersebut. Foucault tidak, ada lebih dari Calion dan Latour, dengan fokus pada media, tapi di 'The Order of Wacana' (1980) - 1970 kuliah perdana di College de France-ia membahas beberapa yang sangat umum 'prosedur' yang 'memungkinkan kontrol wacana '. Ini adalah masalah membangun prinsip-prinsip Foucault menetapkan. Dia berbicara, misalnya, dari 'penghalusan pelajaran berbicara' (1980: 61). Beberapa bentuk dari prinsip ini kurang umum (ritualisasi intens pengaturan pidato tertentu, 'masyarakat wacana' terbatas tertentu). Tapi Foucault berpendapat bahwa, bahkan di era jelas wacana terbuka, ada pembatasan tersembunyi yang dibangun ke pelembagaan wacana ini. Di satu sisi wawasan Foucault telah diadopsi oleh seluruh generasi analisis wacana (misalnya, Fairclough 1995) namun masih ada sesuatu yang menggembirakan dalam desakan Foucault pada analisis materialis wacana, yang memotong retorika wacana diri dan mengeksplorasi kendala dibangun ke dalam berbagai diskursus media. Oleh penghalusan dari pelajaran berbicara, Foucault menjelaskan, dia berarti bukan hanya exclu sion literal dari orang tertentu dari berbicara tetapi juga 'gerak tubuh, perilaku, keadaan, dan seluruh rangkaian tanda-tanda yang harus menyertai wacana' (1980: 62) . Ada lebih dari cukup di sini untuk memberikan titik awal provokatif untuk menganalisis alam semesta gestural budaya selebriti. Dan yang terpenting (seperti ANT) Foucault mengembangkan materialisme ke dalam dekat memperhatikan pola wacana itu sendiri. 'Analisis wacana dipahami seperti ini,' tulisnya, 'tidak mengungkapkan universalitas makna, tapi membawa cahaya aksi dikenakan kelangkaan' (1980: 73, menambahkan penekanan): yaitu, kelangkaan, atau membatasi aturan, bahwa struktur permukaan wacana. Kelangkaan seperti, bekerja pada tingkat kategori dan pengecualian dari mana wacana dibuat umum adalah dibangun, dapat ditemukan bukan dengan pembacaan murah hati dari teks, tetapi hanya dengan investigasi dari kondisi-kondisi kemungkinan. Apa saran yang lebih baik untuk mendekonstruksi retorika dimediasi bangsa, masyarakat, komunitas, 'dunia bebas', dan sebagainya?