Thus,
>although decon. is not, I think, SUCCESSFULLY anti-narrative, it is
>better able to maintain this position because (like structuralism) it
>treats narrative as a linguistic system. Likewise, deconstruction is
>less likely to lapse into anthropology (though it still does, I believe)
>because it treats the self like a text.
Foucault abandoned archaeology, the discursive critique of Epistemes because
it was not thick enough of an analysis. I think the early Foucault falls
more appropriately in the deconstruction camp. The thick web of power,
institutions, practices, and non-discursive appartus give geneaology the
upper hand.
Of course, there is no escaping anthropology. It is ironic that no one has
called, to my knowledge, called Foucault on the contradiction that in his
early philosophy he condemns the self as an axis of knowledge, but then in
his later years returns to the care of the self as the basis for an ethics
of aesthetic self over-coming.
------------------
>although decon. is not, I think, SUCCESSFULLY anti-narrative, it is
>better able to maintain this position because (like structuralism) it
>treats narrative as a linguistic system. Likewise, deconstruction is
>less likely to lapse into anthropology (though it still does, I believe)
>because it treats the self like a text.
Foucault abandoned archaeology, the discursive critique of Epistemes because
it was not thick enough of an analysis. I think the early Foucault falls
more appropriately in the deconstruction camp. The thick web of power,
institutions, practices, and non-discursive appartus give geneaology the
upper hand.
Of course, there is no escaping anthropology. It is ironic that no one has
called, to my knowledge, called Foucault on the contradiction that in his
early philosophy he condemns the self as an axis of knowledge, but then in
his later years returns to the care of the self as the basis for an ethics
of aesthetic self over-coming.
------------------