Hi Joyce,
I'm afraid I'm not going to be much he*lp with the questions you posed,
since I have not read the section of Dreyfus and Rabinow to which you refer
nor any Derrida (and frankly am afraid to read the latter).
Foucault's work in the early days was referred to as archeology: meaning an
investigation into realms of knowledge or disciplines as unquestionable
truths at the level of text separated from any consciousness which might
have defined it. In plainer English, the archeological method is an
investigation of various texts in a discipline in relation to how what was
said in the texts could have arisen wiuhtout referring to the intention of
some author. Mayber you got this from Dreyfus and Rabinow. If so, then I
assume they are talking about a different archeological approach in
relation to Foucault's archeology. But I think since it is in the preface,
what they are contrasting this with is normal archeology which is an
investigation of physical artifacts in the old Indiana Jones way.
Foiucault calls his method archeology because he is treating "texts" as if
they were monuments, or artifacts in this sense. Something which is there.
Thus his main focus is on statements which are functions of signs to
decide if they make sense, according to what rules they are made, of what
they are a sign and what their formulation effects (Archeology of
KNowledge, 86). That is, a statement is a function which assigns meaning
to a series of signs and under what condition the signs make sense.
Foucault is interested in this archeological period (roughly the 1960's) in
determining why certain phrases, certain ways of saying things particualrly
in the "dubious sciences" like psychology are allowed: how did they
originate, under what conditions. It is in some ways an investigation of
power in the sense that the statement fuinction prescribes what makes sense
to say. SO when a psychologist begins to designtate women as hysterical,
what function permits that statement. This investigation is at a level
beneath or before the consciousness of individuals. SO in answering the
last question, Foucault would make no reference to the intention or
motication of the psychologist, only reference to other statements as
monuments to which what the psychologist says pays a certain homage.
Hopefully this he*lps and you can ask other questions based on this which
might make more sense out of my answers,.
As far as Derrida, I thought (and probably I am wrong) that he, Foucault
Lyotard etc where all post-modernist, or post-structuralist. Is
post-structuralist the same as deconstructionist? I don't know. Maybe
some on the list can inform both of us, since I have shown my ignorance
here. (Where's that @#$* philosophy dictionary anyway).
Hope this all he*lps.
Jeff
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40509
I'm afraid I'm not going to be much he*lp with the questions you posed,
since I have not read the section of Dreyfus and Rabinow to which you refer
nor any Derrida (and frankly am afraid to read the latter).
Foucault's work in the early days was referred to as archeology: meaning an
investigation into realms of knowledge or disciplines as unquestionable
truths at the level of text separated from any consciousness which might
have defined it. In plainer English, the archeological method is an
investigation of various texts in a discipline in relation to how what was
said in the texts could have arisen wiuhtout referring to the intention of
some author. Mayber you got this from Dreyfus and Rabinow. If so, then I
assume they are talking about a different archeological approach in
relation to Foucault's archeology. But I think since it is in the preface,
what they are contrasting this with is normal archeology which is an
investigation of physical artifacts in the old Indiana Jones way.
Foiucault calls his method archeology because he is treating "texts" as if
they were monuments, or artifacts in this sense. Something which is there.
Thus his main focus is on statements which are functions of signs to
decide if they make sense, according to what rules they are made, of what
they are a sign and what their formulation effects (Archeology of
KNowledge, 86). That is, a statement is a function which assigns meaning
to a series of signs and under what condition the signs make sense.
Foucault is interested in this archeological period (roughly the 1960's) in
determining why certain phrases, certain ways of saying things particualrly
in the "dubious sciences" like psychology are allowed: how did they
originate, under what conditions. It is in some ways an investigation of
power in the sense that the statement fuinction prescribes what makes sense
to say. SO when a psychologist begins to designtate women as hysterical,
what function permits that statement. This investigation is at a level
beneath or before the consciousness of individuals. SO in answering the
last question, Foucault would make no reference to the intention or
motication of the psychologist, only reference to other statements as
monuments to which what the psychologist says pays a certain homage.
Hopefully this he*lps and you can ask other questions based on this which
might make more sense out of my answers,.
As far as Derrida, I thought (and probably I am wrong) that he, Foucault
Lyotard etc where all post-modernist, or post-structuralist. Is
post-structuralist the same as deconstructionist? I don't know. Maybe
some on the list can inform both of us, since I have shown my ignorance
here. (Where's that @#$* philosophy dictionary anyway).
Hope this all he*lps.
Jeff
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40509