It is my understanding that it is Foucaldian for euphonic rather than
nationalistic reasons.
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:39:12 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: foucaultian or foucauldian?
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I always thought it had something to do with u.s versus british english, no?
> or is this way off the mark too?
>
> >Erik-
> >
> >I have always used Foucauldian. Have I been terribly, terribly wrong?
> >
> >Andrew Herman
> >Sociology
> >Drake University
> >
>
>
------------------
nationalistic reasons.
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:39:12 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: foucaultian or foucauldian?
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I always thought it had something to do with u.s versus british english, no?
> or is this way off the mark too?
>
> >Erik-
> >
> >I have always used Foucauldian. Have I been terribly, terribly wrong?
> >
> >Andrew Herman
> >Sociology
> >Drake University
> >
>
>
------------------