Too bad about the edition problem! I'll try to keep an eye out for
paragraph #s. Luckily Foucault divides some chapters into sections as
well...
Perhaps I'm reading too much of my Adorno-ism into this, but it
sounds like these patterns of discourse formation are one way of
characterizing the subject-object relationship. After all, we're talking
about epistemology; not privileging the knowing subject.
Bryan Alexander Department of English
email: bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418 Ann Arbor, MI USA 48103
fax: (313) 763-3128 http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Thomas Diez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> before I make some additional comments to what Jim has written, I have to
> admit that I am one of those who doesn't speak French, due to at some point
> in his life having been brought into Latin instead. Worse, I am using the
> German edition. The two Forwards seem to be the "same", but of course the
> paging is a completely different one, and I guess it doesn't make much sense
> to quote here in German (and I will not call this an imperialism of
> language). So I'll try to make my way through counting the _paragraphs_,
> taking for granted that these are the same in any edition (which might turn
> out to be a quite naive assumption...)
>
> Now, my problem, too, was with that middle ground which I found obscure.
> Jim's idea that culture might mean "folk knowledge" hear might solve the
> problem I have, which is that I have so far read Foucault as doing kind of a
> cultural study. In so far, I guess, I would name the practices in this
> "inbetween" as culture. Then again, it seems to me that they are intertwined
> with the so-called "folk knowledge". To put it differently: Can these three
> "areas" be separated? Aren't they all part of what I would call a broad
> cultural discourse?
>
> I have no problems with change here. In par.10 of the Preface to the German
> / English /... edition (the paragraph dealing with the problem of the
> subject) F., I guess, gives the hint of what distinguishes him from
> structuralism: that he is neither on the side of those privileging the
> subject nor on the side of those privileging structures (wherein the latter
> one, indeed, would pose serious problems of dealing theoretically with
> change), but instead looking for the rules which come into the play through
> the existence of discourses. Now if we take that middle space as the
> underlying order and say it's a discursive order, built up of discursive
> _practices_, it is in a stage of constant change, even if this change is
> coming in the form of reproduced continuity.
>
> Does this make any sense to anyone?
>
> Thomas
> ************************************************************************
>
> PLEASE NOTE:
> There has been a restructuring of servers at the University of Mannheim.
> Please use the address Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your reply.
>
> ************************************************************************
> Thomas Diez
> Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
> Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
> Steubenstrasse
> D-68131 Mannheim
> Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
> Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
> Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ************************************************************************
>
>
------------------
paragraph #s. Luckily Foucault divides some chapters into sections as
well...
Perhaps I'm reading too much of my Adorno-ism into this, but it
sounds like these patterns of discourse formation are one way of
characterizing the subject-object relationship. After all, we're talking
about epistemology; not privileging the knowing subject.
Bryan Alexander Department of English
email: bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418 Ann Arbor, MI USA 48103
fax: (313) 763-3128 http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Thomas Diez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> before I make some additional comments to what Jim has written, I have to
> admit that I am one of those who doesn't speak French, due to at some point
> in his life having been brought into Latin instead. Worse, I am using the
> German edition. The two Forwards seem to be the "same", but of course the
> paging is a completely different one, and I guess it doesn't make much sense
> to quote here in German (and I will not call this an imperialism of
> language). So I'll try to make my way through counting the _paragraphs_,
> taking for granted that these are the same in any edition (which might turn
> out to be a quite naive assumption...)
>
> Now, my problem, too, was with that middle ground which I found obscure.
> Jim's idea that culture might mean "folk knowledge" hear might solve the
> problem I have, which is that I have so far read Foucault as doing kind of a
> cultural study. In so far, I guess, I would name the practices in this
> "inbetween" as culture. Then again, it seems to me that they are intertwined
> with the so-called "folk knowledge". To put it differently: Can these three
> "areas" be separated? Aren't they all part of what I would call a broad
> cultural discourse?
>
> I have no problems with change here. In par.10 of the Preface to the German
> / English /... edition (the paragraph dealing with the problem of the
> subject) F., I guess, gives the hint of what distinguishes him from
> structuralism: that he is neither on the side of those privileging the
> subject nor on the side of those privileging structures (wherein the latter
> one, indeed, would pose serious problems of dealing theoretically with
> change), but instead looking for the rules which come into the play through
> the existence of discourses. Now if we take that middle space as the
> underlying order and say it's a discursive order, built up of discursive
> _practices_, it is in a stage of constant change, even if this change is
> coming in the form of reproduced continuity.
>
> Does this make any sense to anyone?
>
> Thomas
> ************************************************************************
>
> PLEASE NOTE:
> There has been a restructuring of servers at the University of Mannheim.
> Please use the address Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your reply.
>
> ************************************************************************
> Thomas Diez
> Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
> Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
> Steubenstrasse
> D-68131 Mannheim
> Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
> Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
> Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ************************************************************************
>
>
------------------