post class post nov. 18: foucalt

I thought the class discussion today was immensely interesting and productive. I really enjoyed the panoptic issues and the dealings with power relations here at Rollins. When I brought up the Academic and Social honor codes, I meant to do so in the context that both are based upon the current social norms of our society. As D.C. stated, some of the violations and rules are things that we should “just know.” The words and written definitions of the Academic code are stated in such loose terms so as the norms change in the future and the norms for each individual class and situation also are in constant flux, the code still applies.

For example, “unauthorized collaboration” is a slippery term. Some teachers take this to mean any sort of interaction between students, as sometimes applied as such during testing situations, but it could also bar discussions not with classmates, but with, instead, outside students that may have already taken the class and possess the common knowledge the students “need” to come up with themselves. In any terms, the definition of plagiarism vs. sharing vs. collaboration is sometimes interpretable and the good and bad notions associated with each are entirely dependent upon the norms of society. For example, our society states “copying” is bad and wrong, yet not in all cases is it against the “law” and sometimes, as for example medical patents run out and generic drugs become available, “copying” can be a good thing as well.

The plagiarizing of ideas also becomes a sticky situation. Where is the line drawn between a copy and a built-on idea? When does an addition to a basic idea become allowed to be a completely new idea? In our international media class, it was stated that there were only 40 truly different stories in the news; everything else is a copy in different wordings. Are those copied news stories plagiarized because they are essentially the same as another? Did I just commit a foul myself as I did not correctly attribute the particular statement to its rightful “owner”? Also, in a technicality, how can an idea or a grouping of words be “owned” by one person only?