Re: deconstruction v. genealogy

On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, Jeffrey A steele wrote:

> Wasn't the idea of "effective history" popularized Jurgen Habermas in _Truth and
> Method_. As a historical methods, it involved the so-called "fusion of
> horizons," a practice based upon a phenomenology that seems to me at least to
> contract Foucault's genealogy. As a result, I find it difficult to equate
> "effective history" with geneaology. The two seem very distinct to me.
> Jeffrey Steele, jasteele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
A quick correction and comment. Truth and Method is by Gadamer.

The comment: as in all cases of sameness and difference, isn't it the
case that similarities and differences depend upon what perspective one
is looking from, most importantly whether one is examining things from up
close or from a distance? Thus from the distance, say, of traditional
historiography or analytic philosophy, Gadamer, Habermas, or Foucault may
seem to have a lot in common in there assumptions concerning a
historicized truth. From up close--from the standpoint of a
Foucauldian--however, the two are a world apart.

This is, I know, rather obvious, but worth saying I think. It also
applies to the derrida vs. foucault strand of this thread. This point
should not be seen as a dismissal of attempts at clarification; rather it
involves adding another dimension. When we say that something is
different, isn't it a matter of a difference in what way, for whom, for
what purpose, etc? (After all, aren't nearly all the thinkers we have
been discussing here the *same* in their rejection of something like a
"difference in-itself"?)

Erik D. Lindberg
Dept. of English and Comparative Lit.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53211
email: edl@xxxxxxxxxxx


Partial thread listing: