intentional fallacy

[Australian Studies Centre]

Just to put in my possible inaccuracies to this line, I thought the debate
about intentional fallacy was centred on Roland Barthes (perhaps later
picked up by Derrida), and part of the 'death of the author'  stuff. What
Barthes was criticising was the assumption amongst readers that the 'real'
meaning of a text is what the author intends. Barthes, rather, argues that
the author's intentions are just one part of the whole ideological matrix.
This is not to say the author's intentions should be ignored or erased (and
this is the conservative reading of intentionality), but that what an
author wants a text to mean has little to do with what it can mean. 

After all, Pol Pot had the best of intentions, he really thought the 'year
zero' plan was doing a great service to the nation of Kampuchea, but just
because this was his intention doesn't mean that he was. Similarly, what
Pynchon really wants MD to mean should not be considered true and proper
meaning (if ever there is one).

It is rather inaccurate to argue that intentions are a fallacy, this kinda
wishes away a most difficult aspect of behaviour. However, neither can
intention be valorised as some noble practice or excuse (but what I really
meant was...)

Mike H 

 
Australian Studies Centre
Kasetsart University
Bangkhen 10900
Bangkok, Thailand
ph (66 2) 942 8174
fax (66 2) 942 8170
psd.asc at nontri.ku.ac.th