I guess i'd say that it's not that we 'should search' but we could,
As for the worry, that seems interesting. I'd say it is way of
investigating, rather than an all-encompassing explanation. It yields
localised results rather than grand theory. But it would, i guess depend on
what you, and Foucault, mean by theory.
I don't have a problem with theory! Perhaps you could say more
Behalf Of Jivko
Sent: 14 November 2001 17:43
Subject: RE: L'enonce /German influenced French guys..
Thank You for this answer!
And it scares me a little. Because if we should search
in every, or almost every, practice for the discursive
practice that enables it, it will not work( but here
im starting to see the theory of the performatives).He
claims that archeaology is not theory, but if you
assert, that the practices are born of the discursive
practices,of all that realy large discursive field,
than you make theory out of the archeaology. Or maybe
I am wrong, if i do, sorry.
Jaques Derrida will be here, in Sofia. In friday.
For three days conference.
Should i convey your good wishes to him:-))))
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry Jivko - I don't follow the logic of your last
> I am also puzzled as to why you are trying to
> discern my reasons for
> not writing much about the notion of enonce!
> I think AK is central to understanding almost all of
> Foucault. There
> are long contextual readings of Histoire de la
> folie, Birth of the
> Clinic, Discipline and Punish, etc. In discussing
> the theory I look at
> AK and Les mots et les choses (The Order of Things)
> in depth. The stuff
> on enonce is in there - it's not much, but i do
> cover it. There are
> lots of discussions of lectures and shorter pieces.
> It's reasonably
> comprehensive. Really, the only major work of
> Foucault's i don't
> discuss at length is The History of Sexuality -
> which is what I am
> working on now.
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals